Case Law Details
Afzalgarh Mahavidyalya Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In the case of Afzalgarh Mahavidyalya Vs ITO, the ITAT Delhi reviewed an appeal against the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices or provide necessary documents, leading to upholding the additions made by the AO. The assessee argued that inadequate representation before the CIT(A) warranted a fresh adjudication. The department contended that the CIT(A) had given sufficient opportunities and requested either upholding the order or a restoration to the AO for reconsideration. The ITAT, noting the procedural lapses and the need for a fair hearing, decided to set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remand the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee has an opportunity to present their case properly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, marking the decision for further proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 11.01.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Shri Deepak Joshi, appearing on behalf of assessee submitted at the outset that this appeal is against an ex-parte of the CIT(A). He submitted that since the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A). This appeal may be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
3. Shri Kanv Bali, representing the department submitted that the assessee was given multiple opportunities by the CIT(A), but the assessee failed to respond to the notices. The assessee either filed adjournment petition or failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A). Hence, it cannot be said that the assessee was not given fair opportunity before the CIT(A). Thus, he prayed for upholding the order of CIT(A). He made an alternate prayer that if at all the issue is to be restored, the same may be restored to Assessing Officer (AO), as the assessee failed to provide relevant documents/information to the AO during assessment proceedings.
4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee in ex-parte proceedings upholding the additions made in assessment order. The CIT(A) had issued seven notices to the assessee. The assessee either failed to respond to said notice or sought adjournment. We further observe that the assessee has failed to provide relevant information as sought by the AO.
4.1 Taking into consideration entire facts of the case as emanating from the orders of the authorities below, without commenting on merits we deem it appropriate to restore these issues back to the file of AO for denovo adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
5. The assessee upon services of the notice from Assessing Officer shall respond to the same and furnish necessary documents/information as sought by the AO.
6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 05th day of August, 2024.
Author Bio
