Promila, Rohtak V. ITO,Ward--3, Rohtak

ITA 1419/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Promila, against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed her appeal exparte for non-appearance and confirmed an addition of Rs. 7 lacs made by the AO. The appeal was initially filed due to grievances regarding the exparte dismissal and the addition made to her income following a scrutiny assessment based on cash deposits in her bank account. The Tribunal heard representatives from both sides and decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121446 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIKAA GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1419/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Promila W/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh, H. No. 1844, Sector- 2-3, Part, Rohtak Rohtak Haryana -124001 PAN No.CDCPP2747N Vs ITO Ward- 3 Rohtak (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Nitikaa Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr DR Date of hearing: 04/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 04/07/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 09.03.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2014-15. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by an exparte order for non appearance and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7 lacs made by the AO. 3. Representative of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 2 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment as per AIR/ CIB information received in respect of cash deposits in the bank account. The statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. On receiving no plausible reply the AO framed the assessment exparte and made the addition of Rs.7 lacs. 5. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) but the proceeding before the appellate authority were not attended properly and the FAA dismissed the appeal by an exparte order. 6. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) should have given some more opportunities of being heard to the assessee and should not have decided the appeal exparte. 7. In the interest of justice we restore this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. Decision announced in the open court on 04.07.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ASTHA CHANDRA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .07.2023 *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CITi 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi