What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get proper service of notice and an adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that notices were not served at the address provided in Form No. 35, leading to non-representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Smt. Abhilasha Jain vs ITO | ITAT Jaipur 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 672/JP/2018

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@

Hearing: 20/08/2018Pronounced: 21/08/2018

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 672/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Smt. Abhilasha Jain ITO Vs. U-8, JDA Quarter Sethi Colony, Ward-04 Jaipur Bharatpur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHQPJ0040A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Roshanta Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/08/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)- 22, Alwar dated 30.01.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10 wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the appeal ex-parte without properly serving the notice and providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the grounds of appeal raised before him on merit.”

The ld. AR submitted that while filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in Form No. 35, the assessee has given the address as C/o Kalani & Company, Chartered Accountants, 5th floor, “The Mile Stone” Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk

ITA No. 672/JP/2018 Smt. Abhilasha Jain, Jaipur Vs ITO, Bharatpur Road, Jaipur-15, to which notices may be sent. It was submitted that apparently the notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A), however, the same have not been served at the address given in Form No. 35 and accordingly, the matter could not be represented before the ld. CIT(A) for want of service of the notice. It was accordingly submitted that the matter may kindly be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merit.

The ld. DR is heard who has not raised any specific objection to set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

After hearing both the parties and pursuing the material available on record, though the notices have been issued by the ld. CIT(A) scheduling the hearing on 28.12.2017 and thereafter on 17.01.2018, however, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. As contended by the ld. AR, the matter could not have attended before the ld. CIT(A) for want of service of notice at the given address. In the interest of justice, we believe that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and the matter is accordingly set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same on merit after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; ikWy jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Jaipur Dated:- 21/08/2018 *Ganesh Kr 2

ITA No. 672/JP/2018 Smt. Abhilasha Jain, Jaipur Vs ITO, Bharatpur आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Abhilasha Jain, Jaipur 1. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur 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. 672/JP/2018) 6.

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत.

SMT. ABHILASHA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, BHARATPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments