Case Law Details
Mohammed Amer Ul Haq Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and granted Mohammed Amer Ul Haq a fresh opportunity to present his case. The appeal, concerning the assessment year 2015-16, arose after the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer’s (AO) order due to the assessee’s failure to respond to multiple hearing notices. The assessee argued that the non-compliance was unintentional and resulted from non-receipt of email notices.
The assessee contended that the denial of a hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal considered the plea and found that the lack of response was not willful or deliberate. The assessee assured full cooperation and compliance in fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that tax adjudication must adhere to fairness and provide reasonable opportunities for the taxpayer to present their case.
The Departmental Representative (DR) argued in favor of upholding the CIT(A) order, stating that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but failed to comply. However, ITAT observed that if procedural lapses prevented a fair hearing, the taxpayer should not be denied a chance to present relevant materials. ITAT reiterated that ensuring a fair hearing is a fundamental principle in tax adjudication.
Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with all procedural requirements and attend hearings. It was made clear that no further adjournments would be granted without justifiable reasons. With this, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, reinforcing the necessity of procedural fairness in tax disputes. The order was pronounced on December 10, 2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 16/08/2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067673623(1) for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. The assessee had failed to respond to the multiple notices issued by the learned CIT-A, which were intimating the date of hearing. As a result of the non-compliance, the learned CIT-A proceeded to confirm the order of the AO, without considering the submissions and materials that could have been presented by the assessee.
3. The assessee has now approached this Tribunal, explaining that the earlier non-compliance was not intentional, and undertakes to fully cooperate with the CIT-A for the purpose of fresh adjudication. The assessee has sought remittance of the matter to the CIT-A for fresh adjudication, with an assurance of making all necessary compliance.
4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the failure to respond to the notices of the CIT-A was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee, including non-receipt of email. The assessee has now undertaken to comply with all the procedural requirements and to furnish the necessary documents and information for a proper hearing. The learned counsel for the assessee emphasized the principles of natural justice and urged that the case be remitted to the learned CIT-A for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present his case.
5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the ld. CIT-A, submitting that despite multiple opportunities being given, the assessee had failed to comply, and therefore the order passed by the CIT-A confirming the AO’s order should be upheld. The DR further argued that the appeal should be dismissed, as the assessee had not shown sufficient cause for the failure to appear before the ld. CIT-A.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The issue before us is whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT-A, considering that the non-compliance in the past was not willful or intentional.
6.1 In the interest of justice and fairness, we are inclined to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and make the necessary compliance before the learned CIT-A. It is well-settled that the principles of natural justice should be adhered to, and the assessee should not be denied the right to be heard unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. The assessee’s undertaking to cooperate fully with the CIT-A in the fresh proceedings indicates a willingness to comply with the procedural requirements.
6.2 Hence, in light of the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee should not be denied a chance to present its case before the learned CIT-A. We find that the assessee’s failure to comply earlier can be attributed to factors that were not deliberate, and the assessee is now making a genuine effort to cooperate with the proceedings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the principles of natural justice demand that the matter be restored to the CIT-A for a fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
6.3 In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned CIT-A and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits. The learned CIT-A is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case, and to take into consideration all the necessary documents and submissions to be provided by the assessee. The assessee is hereby directed to comply with the notices and requirements of the CIT-A and attend the hearings as scheduled. We make it clear that no further adjournments shall be granted without justifiable reasons. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 10th day of December, 2024
Author Bio
