Case Number: ITA 1490/DEL/2019
Appellant: Ramesh Kumar Verma (HUF), New Delhi
Respondent: ITO Ward 42(2), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Result: 2015-16
Case Filed On: 2019-02-22
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-07-11
Pronounced On: 2022-07-11
Bench: Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi
Members: Shri Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member)
This case involves the appeal filed by Ramesh Kumar Verma (HUF) against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-14, New Delhi, dated 06.02.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary grievance is the ex parte disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority, resulting in additions under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant, Ramesh Kumar Verma (HUF), filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 22.08.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 9,73,720. During the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) made two major additions:
As a result, the total income was enhanced to Rs. 1,04,40,150. The assessee appealed against this order, but the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex parte, confirming the AO’s additions.
During the hearing on 05/07/2022, the appellant was represented by Shri Anand Chaudhari and Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Advocates, while the respondent was represented by Shri Shankar Gupta, Senior Departmental Representative (DR). The primary issue raised was the ex parte disposal of the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant to present its case.
Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the appellant had sought additional time to furnish replies and supporting evidence in response to the hearing notices. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied this request, citing the availability of information in the public domain and a similar case being decided previously. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not have any deliberate intention to delay the proceedings and should have been granted reasonable opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal emphasized that merely having information in the public domain and a similar case decided previously were not sufficient grounds to deny the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the appellant more time to submit its evidence and arguments.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by Ramesh Kumar Verma (HUF) was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of ensuring fair opportunities for appellants to present their cases and the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
Decision: Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Signed by: Shri Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Accountant Member)
Date: 11.07.2022
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