PRAKASH VILL KACHERA VARSHAD,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the ex parte order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the issues for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 60 days. The primary grievance was that the first appellate authority passed an ex parte order without granting a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the first appellate authority erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 23.08.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
Registry has pointed out delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed application dated 02.12.2022 seeking condonation of delay.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Limited grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of the appeal by learned first appellate authority.
Drawing my attention to the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), learned counsel for the assessee submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to the assessee in hearing of the appeal. He submitted, though, first appellate authority has stated about notices uploaded in ITBA portal, however, the assessee never received such notices.
Without entering into the controversy as to whether the assessee was actually communicated with the notice of hearing or not, fact remains that the impugned order was passed by the first appellate authority in absence of the assessee. In other words, the assessee did not get an opportunity to represent his case before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, in the interest of fair place and justice, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before learned Commissioner 2 | P a g e (Appeals). Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues back to him for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, I direct the assessee to respond to the hearing notice to be issued by learned Commissioner (Appeals) and cooperate in finalization of the appellate proceeding. With aforesaid observations, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
