GAURAV GOEL,SONEPAT vs. ITO,WARD-2, SONEPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2275/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 September 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the AO. The assessee had requested that all notices and communications be sent via postal mail, not email. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 06.09.2023Pronounced: 06.09.2023

The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.07.2022 of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 29.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-2, Sonepat (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

At the time of arguments it came up that amongst other grounds, assessee has raised a ground that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not given.

3.1 Ld. DR has however opposed the same.

4.

It comes up from the record that before Ld. First Appellate Tribunal in the form 35. Assessee had specifically mentioned that notices and communication be made on postal address and not on e-mail, though provided. The impugned order of ld. First Appellate Authority shows the relying judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT(A) vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) the appeal was dismissed. Thus the ends of justice require giving assessee an opportunity of hearing.

5.

In the light of aforesaid, the issue is restored to the files of ld. CIT(A) to give opportunity of hearing by postal mode too and decide the issues afresh. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06 September, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →