Case Number: ITA 1146/DEL/2020
Appellant: Jahangir Alam, Noida
Respondent: ITO Ward 1(5), Noida
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Result: Appeal allowed for statistical purposes
Case Filed On: 2020-05-18
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-09-09
Pronounced On: 2022-09-09
This case involves Jahangir Alam, a resident of Noida, appealing against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 1(5), Noida, for the assessment year 2010-11. The appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and the case was restored to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication.
The appellant, Jahangir Alam, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. The case was taken up for scrutiny, but due to non-compliance and non-attendance, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was dated 26.10.2017. The assessee appealed against this order, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing non-compliance with the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
The appellant also sought leave to add, delete, modify, or substitute any or all grounds of appeal at any appropriate time.
The appeal was taken up for hearing on 18.08.2022. Despite several notices, no one attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee. The tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the assessee, based on the available material.
The appeal was noted to be barred by time. The appellant stated that the order of the CIT(A) was received on 20.08.2019, and due to a delay caused by the counsel, the appeal was filed on 18.05.2020. The appellant requested the tribunal to condone the delay. The tribunal considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the delay was not caused by any undue advantage taken by the appellant. Following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 (SC), the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex parte and the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) noted that the appeal was filed online but lacked the necessary documents, including the assessment order, demand notice, and challan for payment of the fee under Section 249(1)(a).
The tribunal emphasized the principle of natural justice, stating that no one should be condemned unheard. It decided that the grounds of appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The grounds raised in the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the ITAT restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the principle of natural justice is upheld. The appeal of Jahangir Alam, Noida, against the ITO Ward 1(5), Noida, for the assessment year 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes.
Jahangir Alam, Noida vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Noida – ITA 1146/DEL/2020: Assessment Year 2010-11
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform