CHANDER PRAKASH SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not a speaking order and failed to address the assessee's grounds on merits. The Tribunal set aside the orders of both the AO and CIT(Appeals) to ensure justice and fair play.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed late due to health reasons, which the Tribunal condoned. The core issue was that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(Appeals) deprived the assessee of a fair hearing. Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was a speaking order addressing the merits of the additions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI P.K. BANSAL
This appeal is filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 12.07.2011.
The appeal is late by 34 days. The affidavit was filed along with the condonation application giving the reasons that the assessee is suffering from Psychiatric and Hypertension for the last two years. In view of this fact, I condone the delay and admit the appeal filed by the assessee.
At the outset, the ld. AR before me vehemently contended that the assessee has been deprived of the opportunity of being heard. The assessment order as well as the CIT (A)’s order has been passed ex-parte without giving the effective hearing to the assessee. The ld. DR, on the other hand, on this issue relied on the orders of the authorities below.
After hearing the rival submissions and going through the orders of the authorities below, I noted that in this case, an ex-parte order was passed by the AO on an income of Rs.10,29,290/- against the returned income of the assessee at Rs.1,05,120/-. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A) although the CIT (A) mentioned in the order that notice has been issued for hearing four times but nobody attended on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, he had no option but to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record. On merits, I noted that the CIT (A) just confirmed the additions without passing a speaking order by discussing each and every addition being made by the AO. Thus, I noted that the CIT (A) has simply confirmed the order of the AO without going into the merits whether the ground taken by the assessee is to be allowed or not. I, therefore, convinced that it is a fit case where the order of the CIT (A) has to be set aside. From the order of the AO, I noted that the main addition made in this case relates to difference in respect of receipt declared by the assessee in its profit & loss account and in TDS certificates. This itself, in my opinion, requires a reconciliation. This reconciliation has to be submitted by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties, I set aside the order of the AO/CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO directing to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee. I order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is statistically allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 18th day of February, 2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026