What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without proper service of notices or providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessment order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance with AO notices and failure to produce evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the ex-parte assessment order was justified.

Ami Aditya, Rourkela vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR

Hearing: 17/10/20Pronounced: 17/10/20

Assessment Year : 2013-14 , Flat No.503, 5th Ami Aditya, Flat No.503, 5 Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner of of floor, floor, Medridian Medridian Tower, Tower, Income Income Tax, Tax, National National Above Above Canara Canara Bank, Bank, Faceless Faceless Assessment Assessment Uditnagar, Rourkela Uditnagar, Rourkela Centre, Delhi PAN/GIR No. No.AJOPA 9474 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : N o n e Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR DR Date of Hearing : 17/10/20 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 6.6.2024 A), NFAC, Delhi dated 6.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2012 NFAC/2012-13/10150946 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2013-14.

None appeared for appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue.

We have heard ld Sr DR. A perusal of the order of ld CIT(A) shows We have heard ld Sr DR. A perusal of the order of ld We have heard ld Sr DR. A perusal of the order of ld that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without proper that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without proper that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without proper

P a g e 1 | 3 service of notices to the assessee and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has stated that the assessee has not been heard. It is also noticed that the assessment order has been passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act due to non- compliance of notices issued by the AO and also non production of evidence in support of the claim made by the assessee. It is also noticed that the ld CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and simply upheld the assessment order. From the facts stated above, we are of the view that one more opportunity is to be provided to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to comply with the notices issued b y the ld CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings. If the assessee fails to comply with the notices, liberty is granted to the ld CIT(A) pass the order as per law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2024.

AMI ADITYA,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD-1, ROURKELA

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