What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, citing the principle of natural justice. A cost of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on the assessee for their conduct.

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's failure to appear despite multiple hearing notices. The assessee sought a fresh opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside. Whether a fresh opportunity for assessment should be granted on payment of cost.

M/S. Trimurti Travels, Bhubaneswar vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Cuttack 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Appellant: Shri N.Panda, AR

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Hearing: 01/05Pronounced: 01/05

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Bhubaneswar dated

18.4.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has

also filed stay petition for stay of demand raised by the

department.

At the time of hearing, ld counsel for the assessee did not

press stay petition, therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed.

P a g e 1 | 4

Now, I take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA

No,.285/CTK/2018.

In Ground Nos.1 to 3, the grievance of the assessee is that

the CIT(A) has passed order exparte without affording reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the sake natural

justice, the order passed is liable to be quashed/set aside.

At the outset, ld counsel for the assessee has informed that

proper opportunity of hearing was not granted and the appeal was

decided exparte. He has submitted that if an opportunity of

hearing be granted then there will be no such default in future.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the orders

of lower authorities, I observe that the CIT(A) has fixed hearing

on 17.1.18,. 14.2.18, 21.2.18, 12.3.18 and 11.4.18 as is evident

from the impugned order, however, the assessee failed to appear

before the CIT(A), which resulted to exparte order. I also find

that the assessment was framed u/s.144 of the Act for the non-

compliance of the assessee.

Be that it may, now before me, it is vehemently pleaded by

ld counsel for the assessee that if an opportunity be granted then

the assessee shall fully co-operate and get the denovo assessment

at an early date.

P a g e 2 | 4

Considering the principle of natural justice, I consider it

justifiable to give one more opportunity to this appellant. I direct

the assessee and his representative to be present before the AO

by 27.5.2019 with necessary evidence so that the fresh

assessment can be framed at an early date. I also further direct

the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer suo-moto

without waiting for any notice of hearing. However, the AO is at

liberty to proceed with the matter as per law. I also consider it

appropriate to restore the appeal with imposition of cost of

Rs.3,000/- on the assessee for his conduct before the CIT(A) and

the Assessing Officer, which should be deposited on or before

20.5. 2019. The assessee is further directed to file copy of the

challan of deposit of cost before the Assessing Officer as an

evidence in compliance of the order of this Tribunal as well as to

file copy of the same to the Tribunal. With these directions, the

appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the Assessing

Officer for fresh adjudication. As the matter is restored to the file

of the AO to decide the assessment denovo, other grounds on

merits are not adjudicated upon.

P a g e 3 | 4

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 01/05/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 01 /05/209 B.K.Parida, SPS

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Trimurti Travels, Aerodrome Gate, Bhubaneswar Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar.

The Respondent. ITO, Ward 2(4), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4

M/S. TRIMURTI TRAVELS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), BHUBANESWAR

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