Sidharth Sharma, Ghaziabad V. CGO Complex-2, , Ghaziabad

ITA 4184/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1110 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4184/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Sidharth Sharma, 2119/Sector 16-A, Vashundhara, Ghaziabad PAN : BERPS9882J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sunil Kumar, CA Revenue by Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 31.03.2017 in appeal no. 99/2015-16-GZB in assessment year 2012-13 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or in short ‘Ld. F.A.A.’) in regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment order dated 27/03/2015 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer ‘AO’). 4184/Del/2017 Sidharth Sharma 2 2. The assessee has raised six grounds of appeal of which ground no. 1 is as follows:- “01. That the impugned action of the ld. CIT(A) of disposing-off the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee, is absolutely arbitrary, unlawful, perverse, unjustified and bad in law and also against the principle of natural justice; as the ld. CIT(A) apprised the appellant to re- fix the case for hearing on some other date through hearing notice and o denial of adjournment was made and later on passing straightway the impugned order is unjustified and also against the specific provisions and spirit of law.” 3. After hearing the Ld. AR and Ld. DR, the Bench is of considered opinion that the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for want of prosecution as well as on merits. As for the question of non-appearance is concerned, it can be observed on 14.03.2017 application for adjournment was filed on the ground that counsel of appellant is ill. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed adjournment application but passed the order on 31.03.2017. 4. The Bench is of considered opinion that if there was no case of barring due to limitation and the appeal was not disposed off on 14.03.2017 itself then when the application for adjournment was moved on the ground that the Counsel of appellant was ill, had justification to be denied. It cannot be considered to be case of want of prosecution when in the order presence of Authorized Representative Shri Sunil Kumar, CA is shown. 5. The ends of justice require restoration of the issues on merits with Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no. 1 is allowed in favour of the assessee. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Ld. CIT(A) shall proceed to decide the appeal of assessee on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-12 th .10.2022 *Binita, SR.P.S* 4184/Del/2017 Sidharth Sharma 3 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI