What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was because the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte, and it was not established that the assessee was properly served with a hearing notice.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was against the CIT(A)'s order which affirmed an addition of deemed revenue. The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without proper service of notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte is valid without proper service of notice to the assessee. Whether the statutory requirement of service of notice was met before passing the ex parte order.

Dhruv Prasad Murarka vs DCIT | ITAT Patna 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘VIRTUAL COURT’AT KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM

आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna’s order dated 22.11.2017 passed in case No.CIT(A), Patna-2/10382/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel representing assessee has pinpointed at the outset that the CIT(A)’s order under challenge; affirming the Assessing Officer’s action adding deemed revenue amount of Rs.3,04,839/-, has been passed ex parte without even indicating as to whether this taxpayer had been actually served relevant hearing notice or not. This clinching aspect has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Faced with this factual position, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant grievance back to the CIT(A) for his appropriate adjudication afresh on merits keeping in view the statutory requirement u/s 250(6) of the Act. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced at the time of hearing in open court on 14/09/2020.

DHRUV PRASAD MURARKA,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

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