Ritu Bansal, Noida V. ITO, Ward-3(2), Noida

ITA 2661/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3208 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.S. NAGAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2661/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) RituBansal, 702, 7 th Floor, MahagunMarvella, Sector-78, Noida PAN: AMJPB2194B Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. S. Nagar, CA Revenue by: Shri T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT DR Date of Hearing 18/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/04/2022 O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J. M.: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.10.2018 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–I, Noida {hereinafter called in short as the “ld. Commissioner”} u/s 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16. Page | 2 2. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without being admitted due tonon-availability of challan form for the fees paid in terms of provisions of section 249(1)(a) of the Act and non- appearance of the Assessee . The Assessee before us claimed that it never received any such notice of hearing as mentioned in the impugned order and therefore the Assessee could not get proper opportunity of being heard. The assesse further submitted that it has paid fees of Rs. 10000/- and also affixed the chhallan form of the same with the appeal filed before the Ld. Commissioner. We, at this stage, are not going into the controversy with regard to issuance and receipt of notices to the Assessee and non- appearance of the Assessee for its willful avoidance, but only considering the peculiar facts that Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine mainly on non-finding of Chhallan form of fess paid, thus we deem it appropriate to remand this case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, hence ordered accordingly. We clarify that the Assessee has to establish the payment of necessary fee as already been paid in terms of the provisions of section 249(1)(a) of the Act and shall co-operate with the appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner and will appear as and when would be required and in case of default, the Ld. Commissioner would be at liberty to decide the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte in accordance of law. Page | 3 3. In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2022. -Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29/04/2022 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi