What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without properly discussing the facts and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) which affirmed various additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) allegedly provided only one opportunity for hearing via email.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the principles of natural justice by providing adequate opportunities for hearing before passing an ex parte order.

M/S A.B. Marketing Co., Ranchi vs DCIT | s.250(6), 143(3) | ITAT Ranchi 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘E-COURT’AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri S.S. Godara, JM

आदेश /O R D E R Per S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ranchi’s order dated 21.12.2018 passed in case No.CIT(A), Ranchi/10162/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file persued.

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order under challenge affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing/adding salary, bonus/wages of Rs.1,01,530/-, TDS/VAT payable of Rs.5,34,835/-, unexplained expenditure of Rs.20,070/-, interest of Rs.27,576/-, unexplained handling and forwarding charges expenses of Rs.5,32,970/-, unexplained godown expenses of Rs.82,476/- and addition to fixed assets of Rs.27,37,807/-; respectively has been passed ex parte. With the able assistance of both the learned representatives, we notice from the CIT(A)’s Assessment Year:2015-16 M/s A. B. Marketing Co. Page 2 observations in paras 4 & 5 that he had allegedly served the assessee by way of e-mail on 12.12.18 only i.e. a single opportunity and thereafter proceeded to adjudicate all these issues without discussing the relevant facts and evidence available on record required u/s 250(6) of the Act. We deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that larger interest of justice would be met in case the assessee is afforded one more innings before the CIT(A) to pursue its case as per law without three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in open court on 16/09/2020.

M/S A.B. MARKETING CO.,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

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