Case Number: ITA 1100/DEL/2020
Appellant: Drizzle Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi
Respondent: ITO, Ward-7(4), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Result: Final Tribunal Order
Case Filed On: 2020-03-17
Date of Order: 2023-06-30
Pronounced On: 2023-06-30
This case pertains to the non-prosecution and ex-parte decision for the assessment year 2015-16 involving Drizzle Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi, and the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-7(4), New Delhi. The primary issue in this appeal was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution, leading to the ex-parte decision without proper adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Drizzle Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi, filed an appeal against the order dated 20/01/2020 passed by CIT(A)-3, New Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution, and the assessee sought relief from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for re-adjudication of the issues on merits.
The AO had passed an assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, which was subsequently challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution, without proper adjudication of the grounds raised in the appeal.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance and non-submission of required documents by the assessee. The CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without specific adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee in Form No. 35.
During the proceedings before the ITAT, the appellant did not appear, nor was any authorized representative present. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing ex-parte after considering the submissions of the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR). The key points discussed were:
Appellant: None
Revenue: Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
The appellant did not appear for the hearing, and no adjournment application was filed. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the case ex-parte and considered the submissions of the Sr. DR.
The learned Sr. DR candidly agreed with the Tribunal’s observations that the CIT(A) had passed the order in the absence of the assessee, without proper adjudication of the grounds raised in the appeal. The Sr. DR did not oppose the proposal to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and the circumstances surrounding the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A). The key findings were:
Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the appellant a proper opportunity of being heard. The appellant was also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A).
The ITAT concluded that the non-prosecution and ex-parte decision for the assessment year 2015-16 involving Drizzle Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi, required fresh consideration by the CIT(A) due to the lack of proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June 2023 by C.M. Garg, Judicial Member, and Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member.
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