CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON V. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3515/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order passed by the CIT(A) on 08.07.2024, which was based on a notice issued nearly a year earlier on 07.08.2023. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) passed the order without a fair hearing, as no subsequent notices were issued, and the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Tribunal noted the lapse in following the principles of natural justice and the procedural fairness in the appellate process, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472019 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3515/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Ltd., 2nd Floor Plot no. 184, Platinum Tower, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon-122016. PAN- AAACC 5110 G Vs DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv., Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv.; Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv.; & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Department represented by Shri Surender Pal, CIT( DR) Date of hearing 29.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 30.10.2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: Captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the first appellate order dated 08.07.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 2 hereafter referred to as the “Act”, which in turn arises from the order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2009-10 in question. 2. The assessee has raised several ground to assail the first appellate order passed ex parte. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the first appellate order has been passed vide order dated 8.7.2024 whereas the last notice of hearing was issued nearly an year back on 7.8.2023. In the intervening period no other notice was issued towards hearing by the CIT(Appeals). It is thus not fair for the First Appellate Authority to pass an order in pursuance of a notice issued long back. The learned counsel for the assessee thereafter referred to the reply filed by the assessee dated 7.8.2023 wherein the assessee pointed out that intention of the CIT(A) that the appeal by the assessee shall be taken after the final decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the subject matter in dispute. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal vide order dated 29.5.2019 passed a remand order and directed the AO to frame the assessment de novo. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court de novo assessment order was passed by the AO. Aggrieved by the de novo assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Without 3 affording any opportunity to the assessee, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order dated 8.7.2024 which is subject matter of present appeal. The learned counsel thus submitted that in the present set of circumstances where the CIT(A) has passed the order unilaterally after a gap of nearly one year from the date of last notice, it will be only fair to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after taking cognizance of the submissions and explanation which may be offered by the assessee before the CIT(A) on the substantive aspects of appeal. 4. The learned CIT(DR) did not per se object to the restoration of matter for fresh adjudication where it appears to the Tribunal that principles of natural justice have been flouted. 5. In the peculiar facts of the case where the first appellate order in question has been passed after a considerable gap after the last issue of notice and where the proceedings were pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it will be only fair to give proper chance to the assessee to represent its case in right earnest. Guided by the principles of objectivity, fairness and justice, we consider it just and expedient to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order on the points raised by the assessee after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 4 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 30.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 30.10.2024. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "