GEETA RANI,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, WARD 1, KURUKSHETRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 459/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 April 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in breach of natural justice principles and was ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 30 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity for hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order PER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee who is an individual taxpayer having residential status as that of a person resident in India.

2.

The assessee being aggrieved by DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052161304(1) DT. 18/04/2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 which was passed by Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore the present appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us, against the aforesaid order dt. 18/04/2023. 2.1 The date of CIT(A) order is dt. 18/04/2023. The date of receipt of order of CIT(A) is dt. 18/04/2023. The appeal before Tribunal is filed on 17/07/2023.

3.

There is a delay of 30 days in preferring the aforesaid Appeal and assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that she is not well conversant with Income Tax Laws and also could not contact her Counsel in time and therefore the delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal has occurred and that the same may please be condoned. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor malafidely made. She has filed Affidavit in support of her application which is dated 27/02/2024.

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR who has not opposed this application of condonation of delay. In view thereof we condone the delay. Thereafter the appeal was heard on merits.

5.

The Ld. Counsel contended that order of Ld. CIT(A) is passed in the breach of principles of natural justice and that the said order of the Ld. CIT(A) is exparte and without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and / or virtual hearing. The Ld. DR too has admitted this fact during the course of the hearing today. Both the parties agreed that order be set aside and matter be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for passing fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee herein, consequently the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after fully complying with all the principles of natural justice including opportunity of being heard.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →