Sunita v. ITO, Ward-55(3), New Delhi - 2019-LL-0930-11

Citation	2019-LL-0930-11
Appellant Name	Sunita
Respondent Name	ITO, Ward-55(3), New Delhi
Court	ITAT-Delhi
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	30/09/2019
Assessment Year	2014-15
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	ex-parte order • restoration of appeal • sufficient opportunity of being heard • non-appearance • application for adjournment
Bot Summary:	In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. After perusing the impugned order, it is found that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order against the assessee without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In my view sufficient opportunity of hearing for substantiating the claim of the assessee has not been given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, who vide his impugned order dated 31.01.2019 has decided the appeal of the assessee exparte. In the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2501/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) SUNITA (PROPRIETOR), VS. ITO, WARD 55(3), C-56, GALI NO. 8, RAJGARH NEW DELHI COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI 110 031 (PAN: ASHPS7576E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee By NONE Revenue By MS. RAKHI VIMAL, SR. DR. ORDER Assessee has filed this appeal against impugned order dated 31.1.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi. 2. Facts narrated by revenue authorities are not disputed by Ld. DR, hence, same are not repeated here for sake of convenience. 3. In this case, Notice of hearing to assessee was sent by Registered AD post, in spite of same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of present case and issue involved in present Appeal, I am of view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to assessee, therefore, I am deciding present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing Ld. DR and perusing records. 1 4. After perusing impugned order, it is found that Ld. CIT(A) has passed exparte impugned order against assessee without giving adequate opportunity to assessee. 5. On contrary, Ld. DR relied upon order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. I have heard Ld. DR and perused records especially impugned order passed by Ld. First Appellate Authority. I find that assessee remain non-cooperative before Ld. CIT(A). But in my view sufficient opportunity of hearing for substantiating claim of assessee has not been given by Ld. CIT(A) to assessee, who vide his impugned order dated 31.01.2019 has decided appeal of assessee exparte. Therefore, in interest of justice, issues in dispute are remitted back to file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. 7. In result, Appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30/09/2019. Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 30/09/2019 SRB Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A), New Delhi. 5. CIT(ITAT), New Delhi AR, ITAT Sunita v. ITO, Ward-55(3), New Delhi

Metadata

Judgment