SHRI OM PRAKASH AGARWAL C/O- KALANI & CO. CA 5TH FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR TURN, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-BHIWADI, WARD-BHIWADI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 747/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 July 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have made further attempts to serve notice before dismissing the appeal ex parte. Since all other orders were served at the same address, there was no merit in the observation that the address was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution as the postal department reported the assessee not available at the given address. However, the assessee contended that the address was correct as orders from the AO and CIT(A) were served there.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250

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. 747/JP/2019

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 24/07/2019Pronounced: 25/07/2019

ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex parte order of ld.CIT(A), Alwar dated 29/03/2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the matter of order passed U/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for not giving the opportunity of hearing by the ld. CIT(A) before deciding the issue. The ld AR of the assessee has drawn our attention to the order of the ld. CIT(A) in which only one notice was issued for fixing the date of hearing on 2 ITA 747/JP/2019 Om Prakash Agarwal Vs ITO 27/03/2019. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that as per the postal department, no such person is available at the address, accordingly, he dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and without deciding the merit of the addition so made. The ld AR has further contended that the address of the assessee was correct on which not only the A.O’s order was served on him but even the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal was also served on the assessee. Accordingly, there is no force in the observation of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee did not reside at that place.

3.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that before dismissing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has given only one opportunity and thereafter dismissed the same by observing that the assessee is not available at the address as per the postal department. I also observe that when all the orders passed by the department i.e. order passed by the A.O. U/s 143(3) and the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) U/s 250 of the Act is properly served on the assessee at the same address, there is no merit in saying that the address was not correct. The ld. CIT(A) should have tried to serve the notice through other means also before dismissing the appeal. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, I set aside the ex

1.

3 ITA 747/JP/2019 Om Prakash Agarwal Vs ITO parte of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding the matter on merit after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within two months from the date of receipt of this order. I direct accordingly. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2019

Sd/- ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (RAMESH C SHARMA) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25th July, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellants- Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, Alwar. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward- Bhiwadi. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 747/JP/2019) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →