ANU JAIN,MORADABAD vs. ACIT-1, MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2399/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 October 2023AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done because the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard before the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that they were not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard, as they did not receive notice for the second hearing date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “S.M.C.” : DELHI ]

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, C. A.;, Shri Om Parkash

आदेश / O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. :

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] Delhi, dated 14.07.2023 for assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the appeal of the assessee was disposed of without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. Counsel referring to page 2 of the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) order submits that only two opportunities were provided to the assessee, one on 22.06.2023 and the other on 7.07.2023. The ld. Counsel submits that on 22.06.2023 the assessee sought an adjournment and the ld. CIT (Appeals) fixed the second hearing on 7.07.2023 for which the assessee has not received any notice. Therefore, the ld. Counsel submits that as the ld. CIT (Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for deciding the appeal afresh.

3.

The ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals).

4.

Heard both the parties perused the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). It is observe that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 22.06.2023 on which date the assessee sought an adjournment. Second hearing was fixed on 7.07.2023 after a gap of three weeks and it is the contention of the assessee that no notice has been received by the assessee. It is also noticed from the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without disposing of the grounds on merits. In the circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to restore the 2 appeal to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly this appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on : 11/10/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →