What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard but was imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 for their conduct.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear despite multiple opportunities. The assessee later sought to have the matter heard on merits, but could not explain their absence before the lower authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order when the assessee failed to appear, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Upl Environmental Engineers Ltd… vs ACIT | ITAT Ahmedabad 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR&

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Parin Shah, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.R

Hearing: 03.03.2019Pronounced: 30.04.2019

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “The Act”) arising out of the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the ACIT, Range-4, Baroda for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

It appears from the records that the order impugned passed by the first appellate authority is an ex-parte one. In fact during the appellate proceeding, the case was fixed for hearing on various dates as mentioned hereinbelow:

Sr.No. Date of Notice Date of compliance 1 22.04.2015 01.05.2015 - Adjournment Application filed. Case adjourned to 25.05.2015

- 2 - ITA Nos.764/Ahd/2016 UPL Environmental Engineers Ltd. Asst.Year – 2011-12 2 01.06.2015 12.06.2015 3 03.07.2015 10.07.2015 4 14.07.2015 21.07.2015 5 31.07.2015 06.08.2015 - Adjournment application filed. Case adjourned on 20.08.2015 6 12.10.2015 22.10.2015 7 27.10.2015 03.11.2015 8 04.11.2015 19.11.2015 9 30.11.2015 08.12.2015

It is thus evident on record that several opportunities of hearing was provided to the appellant by the Learned CIT(A) in order to dispose of the matter. However, only in two occasions out of nine adjournment applications were filed. Further that, no assistance were practically given by the appellant save and except on 11.10.2015, the representative of the assessee furnished a letter dated 10.06.2015 intimating that search action were carried out at various premises of the assessee and its associates on 19.03.2015 and therefore the assessment order for the year under consideration gets abated. No other submission was filed. Having no alternative, the Learned CIT(A) had to dispose of the matter ex-parte on the basis of the material available on record.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the matter can be heard out and can be disposed of by us on merit. However, no explanation has been rendered by him as to why the assessee failed to appear before the Learned CIT(A) during the entire appellate proceeding in spite of having several opportunities of being heard by the first appellant authority. We do not appreciate the conduct of the assessee in this respect neither we want to dispose of the matter on merit. However, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we expressed our mind to give another opportunity to the appellant to get his appeal heard by the authorities below. The Learned representative of the department fairly has not raised any objection to this.

- 3 - ITA Nos.764/Ahd/2016 UPL Environmental Engineers Ltd. Asst.Year – 2011-12 4. Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the issue to the file of the Learned CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh upon giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and also after taking into consideration the evidences placed on record or the materials and are evidences which the appellant may chose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, taking into consideration the conduct of the appellant as it appears from the records for not being serious before the first appellate authority we impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the appellant proposal of which has fairly been agreed upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant before us. Such cost is to be deposited with the Revenue, the receipt whereof be submitted before the Learned CIT(A) before the appeal is taken up for hearing. We further make it clear that in the appellate proceeding the assessee will also co-operate with the Learned CIT(A) without asking for any unnecessary adjournment.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/04/2019

Sd/- Sd/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 30/04/2019 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS

- 4 - ITA Nos.764/Ahd/2016 UPL Environmental Engineers Ltd. Asst.Year – 2011-12

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-2, Vadodara. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

Date of dictation 25.04.2019 (Dictation Pages 3) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 25.04.2019 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …30.04.2019 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement……… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S …………….. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ……………….. 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk… 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

UPL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS LTD.,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4, BARODA

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