DEEPAK KUMAR,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, WARD 1, KURUKSHETRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 650/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI A.D. JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee should not suffer due to the counsel's lapse, and principles of natural justice require a decision on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without deciding on merit. The assessee's counsel could not file written submissions due to a misunderstanding of the faceless appeal process and the ITR filing deadline.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merit, and if the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not specified

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

आदेश/Order

Per A.D. Jain, Vice President:

1.

This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.08.2023, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the sole grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(A)

650-Chd-2023-– Deepak Kumar, Kurukshetra 2 has erred in passing the order dated 30.08.2023 by upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer without deciding the appeal on merit; that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, who had framed assessment without any jurisdiction; that the Assessee had engaged the Counsel who applied for adjournment on 15.7.2023 and the ld. CIT(A) has allowed adjournment till 31.7.2023 but the written submissions could not be filed due to the fact that 31.7.2023 was the last date of filing of ITR for non-corporate or non- auditable cases; and that due to implementation of faceless appeal, the Counsel was not aware to avail opportunity given by CIT(A) on 11.8.2024 and the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed in the absence of the written submissions of Assessee. It has further been submitted that the impugned order confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), by passing an ex-parte order, is totally unfair, arbitrary and unjustified. It is prayed that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the Assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing of the appeal and the matter be sent to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

Heard. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ex- parte by merely upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer,

650-Chd-2023-– Deepak Kumar, Kurukshetra 3 without considering the material available on record, and also without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The plea taken by the Assessee that the Assessee could not file written submissions due to fact that 31.7.2023 was the closing date for filing of ITR and the Assessee was not aware about the practice of implementation of faceless appeal, appears to be a reasonable cause. It is settled law that the Assessee should not be made to suffer for the lapse of their Counsel. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

5.

The ld. D.R., though, has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, she has no objection if the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.

6.

In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, 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.

650-Chd-2023-– Deepak Kumar, Kurukshetra 4 7. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on 01.04.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →