ARMAISAMMA THALLI RESTAURANT AND BAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 799/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 September 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing, noted that the CIT(A) had posted the case multiple times without the assessee's appearance. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 03/09/2020Pronounced: 04/09/2020

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10373/2017-18/CIT(A)- 2, Dated 30/01/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2.

Assessee has raised the following grounds in its appeal:- (1) The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. (2) The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the estimation of business income after rejecting the books of accounts. (3) The Appellate Commissioner erred in not separating the liquor sales with the food sales, and thereby estimating the total income @ 8%, thereby confirming an amount of Rs. 17,72,359/-. (4) Any other ground or grounds that may urge either at or before the date of hearing.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before me that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued that proper opportunity had been provided to the assessee however, on the given date of hearing, neither the assessee nor its Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On examining the facts of the case, I find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR. The Ld. CIT (A) had posted the case on several occasions. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the date of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte based on the material available on record. In this situation, I do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, and in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

Pronounced in the open Court on 04th September, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →