Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1268/JP/2018
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 5th September, 2018 of ld. CIT (A)-3, Jaipur for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-
“ 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity of hearing more particularly when on previous hearings, A/R of the assessee attended before CIT (A) and sought for adjournment.
2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the individual grounds of appeal on merits and upholding the order of AO.
The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal.
The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.
The assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 27.11.2014.
The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the IT Act made additions on account of dividend stripping on shares under section 94(7) as well as under section 14A of the IT Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A), however, due to non appearance on behalf of the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily.
3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that initially the ld. A/R of the assessee attended the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A) and took adjournments. However, on the last date of hearing i.e. 4th September, 2018 he did not appear before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex parte. The ld. A/R has filed the affidavit of one Shri J.K. Singhal, CA authorized to appear before the ld. CIT (A). Thus the ld. A/R has explained the reason for non appearance that due to inadvertent and bonafide mistake he could not note down the date of hearing and, therefore, could not attend the hearing on that date. The ld. A/R has submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity of hearing as the ld. CIT (A) has not discussed the issue on merits.
4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has opposed the request of the assessee for grant of one more opportunity and submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has given more than sufficient opportunity of hearing but the assessee kept on seeking adjournments and finally nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. She has relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A).
We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. We find that initially the appeal of the assessee was fixed on various dates on which the ld. A/R of the assessee sought adjournments and finally when the appeal was listed for hearing on 4th September, 2018 nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ld. A/R of the assessee filed the affidavit explaining the reasons that he forgot to note down the date of hearing and, therefore, he could not appear before the ld. CIT (A) on 4th September, 2018. Having considered the reasons explained by the A/R Shri J.K. Singhal, CA who was authorized to appear before the ld. CIT (A) as well as the facts and circumstances of the case that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of any explanation and submissions on behalf of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the assessee be given one more opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the record of the ld. CIT (A) for giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case and then to decide the appeal on merits.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 23/01/2019.