What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without establishing proper service of notices on the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's return was processed, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte assessment order due to non-response to notices. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for similar reasons.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were valid without proper service of notices on the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice.

Highlander Charitable Society… vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2020

आदेश/Order

PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.2018 of the ld. CIT(A), Palampur.

The following grounds have been raised in this appeal :

That the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Palampur is defective both in law and facts of the case.

2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity has been granted to the appellant to represent its case which is against the principal of Natural Justice and Equity as the appellant received the notices very late due to snow fall in that area. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Palampur is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs.

ITA 667/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 2 l1,20,381/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without giving the benefit of the expenses incurred by the appellant. This addition is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted.

4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Palampur is unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs.l 1,20,381/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer as the appellant is a Charitable Society doing Charitable activities and duly fulfills the required conditions of the I.T. Act, 1961. This addition is uncalled for and deserves to be deleted.

That any other ground may kindly be allowed to be taken at the time of appeal with due permission.

Vide ground No. 2 the main grievance of the assessee relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard.

The facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 13.10.2010 declaring ‘nil’ income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) on 01.03.2012. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. However, the AO passed assessment order dated 18.03.2012 ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. He mentioned that the notice was issued on 24.01.2013 fixing hearing on 14.02.2013 but there was no response. Again a Show Cause Notice was issued for compliance on 08.03.2013, but nobody responded.

He, therefore, passed the assessment order ex-parte on 18.03.2013 and assessed this income at Rs. 11,20,381/-.

5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by ITA 667/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 3 passing the impugned ex-parte order. He mentioned that various notices were issued to the assessee but nobody attended, the last notice was issued on 26.11.2018 fixing the date for hearing on 18.12.2018 but none attended.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed and the assessment order passed by the AO was upheld. Now, the assessee is in appeal.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is situated in a remote and hilly village Gaza, Distt.

Lahaul & Spiti and that no notice for hearing was ever received by the assessee, either from the AO or before the ld. CIT(A). He requested that the matter may be set aside to the AO so that the assessee may furnish the relevant documents and the matter may be decided on merit.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr.DR, although supported the orders of the authorities below, but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) passed their respective orders ex-parte, but neither the AO nor ld. CIT(A) brought on record that the notice for hearing was ITA 667/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 4 served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned un-heard as per the maxim Audi Alteram Partem. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.07.2020

HIGHLANDER CHARITABLE SOCIETY,KINNAUR vs. ITO, RAMPUR BSR.

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