M/S ACQUIRE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1789/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 March 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from attending hearings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss. The case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment was completed. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the order was passed ex-parte without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI A.T. VARKEY

For Appellant: Shri T.R. Misra and Sheshan Sharma, Advocates

PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals)- XV, New Delhi dated 28.02.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring a loss of Rs.25,50,850/- on 10.09.2009. He submitted that further, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and thereafter, the assessment was completed. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). He submitted that the CIT (A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without

giving an opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to attend the case fixed for hearing on different dates. The ld. CIT (A) decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte as the notices of hearing remained uncomplied. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter be restored back to the file of the CIT (A) to decide afresh.

3.

Ld. DR did not object if the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT (A).

4.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material. We note that the CIT (A) passed the order ex-parte without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We are of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to attend the hearings. Since the ld. CIT (A) decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, in the interest of justice and equity, we restore this matter to the file of the CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate before the CIT (A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on this 4th day of March, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →