What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) despite the assessee not appearing. The CIT(A) issued two notices in quick succession and passed the order without granting sufficient time for compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order in violation of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

Bal Bharti Nursery School… vs ITO | s.250(6) | ITAT Allahabad 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD “DB”

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM

Hearing: 04/09/2023Pronounced: 08/09/2023

O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 30.03.2023 for AY. 2018-19.

None appeared for assessee. From perusal of the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noted that the assessee is aggrieved by the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) passing ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee which we find it to be factually correct i.e. impugned order is an ex-parte order. It is noted that Ld. CIT(A) had issued twice notice on 16.03.2023 and 25.03.2023 and since assessee did not file any reply to both notices, Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order. From the averment made by Ld. CIT(A) of issuing notices at para 4 of his order, it is not clear as to whether he has given any specific time for compliance of his notices. First notice of Ld CIT(A) was on 16.03.2023, and second notice was on 25.03.2023

Bal Bharti Nursery School meaning within ten (10) days after he issued the first notice, he issued the second notice and has passed the impugned order on 30.03.2023 meaning within five (5) days of the second notice, without specifying the time limit for compliance to the second notice. Therefore, the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. According to us, Ld CIT(A) ought to have been fair and given sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing the impugned order. Therefore, we find force in the ground no. 1 preferred by the assessee that since Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order, without hearing the assessee, there was per-se violation of natural justice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assesse is also directed to file written submission/relevant documents for supporting the grounds of appeal raised by it and request for hearing if it desires in accordance to Rule. And the Ld. CIT(A) to pass the order on merits in accordance to law.

3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08/09/2023.

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments