Case Number: ITA 5653/DEL/2019
Appellant: Sewa Ram, Ghaziabad
Respondent: ITO, Ward-3(4), Noida
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Case Filed On: 2019-06-28
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2020-11-23
Pronounced On: 2020-11-23
This case involves an appeal filed by Sewa Ram against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-3(4), Noida. The appeal was filed on 2019-06-28, and the order was pronounced on 2020-11-23. The primary issue in this case was related to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to the alleged non-receipt of notices by the appellant and the absence of proper documentation.
Sewa Ram, the appellant, is based in Ghaziabad. The appeal was filed against the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-3(4), Noida, for the assessment year 2010-11. The main contention in the case was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on the grounds that the impugned assessment order, demand notice, and challan for filing fees were not available on record, and notices sent to the appellant were returned unserved.
During the hearing, it was noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of Sewa Ram due to the absence of the assessment order, demand notice, and challan for filing fees. The CIT(A) claimed that the appellant did not respond to multiple notices sent for hearing, which were returned unserved by the postal authorities, indicating that no such person was found at the given address.
However, the appellant’s counsel pointed out that along with Form No. 35, the appellant had filed a copy of the impugned assessment order, and the date of filing of the appellate fee along with the BSR Code was mentioned in Form No. 35. Additionally, the demand notice was attached with Form No. 35. These facts contradicted the observations made by the CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:
The Tribunal heard the representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case records. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)’s decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the incorrect assumption that the required documents were not available on record. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed submitted the necessary documents along with Form No. 35, and the date of filing of the appellate fee was mentioned in the form itself.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not serve any notice upon the appellant for the hearing of the appeal, as the notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities. This indicated a clear case of denial of opportunity to the appellant to present his case, thereby violating the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)’s order could not be sustained in law due to the denial of an opportunity for the appellant to be heard and the violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)’s file with the direction to re-decide the appeal on merits, providing a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of Sewa Ram for statistical purposes and directed the CIT(A) to re-decide the appeal on merits after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The decision was announced in the open court on 23.11.2020.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of November, 2020.
Signed by:
(BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date: 23rd November, 2020
Copy forwarded to:
// BY Order //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT Delhi Benches, Delhi
Sewa Ram vs ITO Ward-3(4), Noida – Appeal Dismissal for AY 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