What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without a proper hearing and without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and without deciding on merits, violating principles of natural justice.

Babli Devi D/O Sh. Anoop Singh… vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI A.D. JAIN & DR KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Adv. राजव क ओर से/

Hearing: 05.06.2024Pronounced: 06.06.2024

�नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Jatin Kohli, Adv. राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 05.06.2024 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

The appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 13.09.2023 of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

The Grounds of appeal are as under: - That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1. (Appeals) passed U/s 250(6) of Income Tax Act, 961, is bad against facts and law.

723-Chd-2023 Babli Devi, Kurukshetra 2 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has gravely erred, without appreciating the facts, circumstances and evidences placed on record, in sustaining the addition of Rs. 92,85,000/- of the money gifted by her husband Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Amrik Singh, for purchase of agriculture land.

That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has violated the right of natural justice of the Appellant by not passing the speaking order, and has not given weightage to the grounds against which the impugned appeal was filled.

That the appellant being illiterate could not respond to emails and come to know on receiving the final order via post, the ld. CIT (Appeals) in spite of serving several notices via email could have serve a notice via post which he has done with final order.

3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee submitted that the appeal order by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has been passed ex-parte. The assessment order in this case was also passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits and no sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided to the Assessee. The ld. Counsel has requested the Bench to remand this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits.

4. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).

723-Chd-2023 Babli Devi, Kurukshetra 3 5. We have considered the facts brought on record by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee and we find that the appeal has not been decided on merits by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. Accordingly, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced on 06.06.2024

BABLI DEVI D/O SH. ANOOP SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO-WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments