SMT. SUSHILA MAHESHWARI,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 576/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 August 2019AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, directing that the assessee be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) within two months.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was heard. The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s notice was not served due to a change of counsel, and an affidavit was filed to support this. The tribunal considered the affidavit and the substantial interest of justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 576/JP/2019

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 01/08/2019

ORDER

PER RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex-parte order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 22-03-2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) /147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 In this appeal, the assessee is basically aggrieved for ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee contended that the assessee had earlier appointed the counsel Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta Associate whose address is also mentioned in Form No. 35 for service of notice.

Since, the assessee had changed his counsel, therefore, the notice so issued by the ld. CIT(A) was neither served upon the assessee nor the assessee was informed by the earlier counsel regarding the notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) for attending the hearing. The ld.AR of the assessee also filed the affidavit to this effect before the Bench. The Bench has gone through the affidavit so filed by the assessee wherein the Bench found that assessee had earlier appointed counsel Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta Associate, whose name and address is also mentioned in Form No. 35 for service of notice by the Department. Since the assessee has changed his counsel, therefore, the notice sent by the ld. CIT(A) might have been served at the address mentioned in Form No. 35 which could not be reached to the assessee due to change of counsel. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the substantial interest of justice, I restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh hearing after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within a period compliance, the ld. CIT(A) will be at liberty to pass the order after considering the merits of the case. I direct accordingly.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02 /08/2019.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →