HARDEV SINGH,SANGRUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD SANGRUR, SANGRUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer for the lapse of their counsel and that principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the alleged non-response to notices, which were sent to the previous counsel who failed to inform the assessee. The assessee, an agriculturist, claimed to be dependent on his counsel and thus prevented by sufficient cause.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, considering the lapse of the assessee's counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Velu Palandar v. DCIT94 citing83 ITR 683 · 1972 · HC
आदेश/Order
Per A.D. Jain, Vice President:
This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.08.2023, for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
593-Chd-2023-– Hardev Singh, Sangrur 2 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) has erred in passing the order dated 04.08.2023 by confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 50 lacs u/s 69A of the Act; that the notices were sent on the email address of the earlier Counsel, Shri Puneet Kumar, but the said Counsel did not inform the Assessee about the notices and did not file any submissions before the ld. CIT(A); that the Assessee is an agriculturist, an uneducated person and totally dependent upon his Counsel; and that as such, the Assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not making submissions before the CIT(A). 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 also submitted that the Assessee has a fair case on merits and that the Assessee will make the proper representation before the Assessing Officer concerned who, in the absence of proper representation, passed the order u/s 144 of the Act, which order was confirmed by the CIT(A). 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 appeal may be directed to be decided de novo on merits.
593-Chd-2023-– Hardev Singh, Sangrur 3 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
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 confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, without considering the material available on record, and also without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, under the mistaken impression that the Assessee had not responded to the notices issued and was not interested to pursue the appeal. 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.
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.
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 593-Chd-2023-– Hardev Singh, Sangrur 4 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 is treated as allowed, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13.03.2024
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
