IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'G': NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND
KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE,
No.3528/Del/2015
ITA No.
2010-11
Assessment Year : 2010-
Shri Satya Pal Jindal, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
K-1446, Palam Vihar, Income Tax,
Gurgaon 124 107, Circle-19(1),
Circle-
Haryana. New Delhi.
PAN : AAGPJ2783B.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA.
Respondent by : Shri N.K. Bansal, Senior DR.
Date of hearing : 15.04.2019
Date of pronouncement : 16.04.2019
ORDER
PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT :-
This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is
directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 16th
March, 2015.
2. Ground Nos.1 & 2 of the assessee's appeal read as under :-
"1. That the order dated 16-03-2015 passed u/s 250 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of
Income-tax (Appeals) 12, New Delhi is against law and
facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to
decide the appeal without giving sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to the appellant.
2. That the order dated 16-03-2015 passed u/s 250 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of
Income-tax (Appeals) 12, New Delhi is against law and
2 ITA-3528/Del/2015
facts on the file in as much as he failed to appreciate the
fact that the notices dated 04-02-2015 and 23-02-2015
were received by the appellant much after the date of
fixation of appeals i.e. on 11-02-2015 and 03-03-2015
respectively."
3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned
counsel that learned CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte after issuing
two notices for hearing. The first notice was dated 4th February, 2015
and the appeal was fixed for hearing on 11th February, 2015. The
second notice was dated 23rd February, 2015 and the appeal was fixed
for hearing on 3rd March, 2015. He stated that both the above notices
were served after the date of hearing and therefore, the assessee
could not appear before the Assessing Officer. He, therefore,
requested that the order of learned CIT(A) should be set aside and he
should be directed to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the
assessee.
4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of learned
CIT(A).
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused
the material placed before us. Though the order of learned CIT(A) is
ex-parte but the CIT(A) has not mentioned in the order when the notice
for hearing was issued and served upon the assessee and when was
the date of hearing fixed. In the absence of any such detail in the
order of the learned CIT(A), the facts stated by the learned counsel for
the assessee remain uncontroverted that no adequate opportunity of
being heard was allowed. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate
to set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his
file. We direct him to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the
assessee by issuing notice of hearing well in advance so that the same
3 ITA-3528/Del/2015
can be properly served upon the assessee in time. Thereafter, he
should readjudicate the issues raised before him in accordance with
law.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed
for statistical purposes.
Decision pronounced in the open Court on 16.04.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
KAMBLE)
(SUCHITRA KAMBLE) AGRAWAL)
(G.D. AGRAWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
VK.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant : Shri Satya Pal Jindal,
K-1446, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon 124 107,
Haryana.
2. Respondent : Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle-19(1), New Delhi.
Circle-
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
Assistant Registrar
|
