JAMADAR ANSARI,MOTIHARI vs. ITO, MOTIHARI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a due opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee contended that they were not given adequate chances to represent their case before the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
Per C.M.Garg, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of
the CIT(A)-1, Jamshedpur dated 10.5.2018 for the assessment
year 2011-12
In Ground Nos.1 to 6 of appeal, the grievance of the
assessee is that the CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the
assessment made u/s.144 of the Act and dismissing the appeal of
the assessee without allowing reasonable opportunity to the
assessee.
P a g e 1 | 4
At the time of hearing, Learned A.R. of the assessee
submitted that the CIT(A) has not afforded proper opportunity of
hearing to the assessee. Ld A.R. of the assessee before us
submitted that if one more opportunity is granted, then the case
shall be properly represented before the CIT(A) without any fail or
adjournment. Delay in filing appeal of 14 days is condoned in
view of submissions of both the sides.
Ld D.R. supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have perused the relevant materials on record, inter
alia, assessment order made u./s.144 of the Act and first
appellate order. From these two orders of the lower authorities, it
is an admitted factual position that neither before the Assessing
Officer nor before the CIT(A), the assessee was allowed
opportunity of adequate hearing due to the reason which cannot
be apparently attributable exclusively to the assessee. The tax
authorities are empowered to pass exparte orders if despite
service of summons, the assessee does not comply with the same,
But in the present case, we are not satisfied with the action of the
tax authorities in passing exparte assessment order u/s.144 of the
Act and dismissing the appeal exparte. From Para 2 of the
appellate order, we observe that on 10.8.2016, 19.12.2017,
P a g e 2 | 4 19.3.2017 and 18.4.2018, notices were issued but the assessee
could not comply with the same and the order was passed exparte
and there was no factual findings by the CIT(A). The order of the
CIT(A) seems to be a stereo type one. Hence, we are satisfied
that the assessee was not allowed due opportunity of hearing
neither before the Assessing officer nor before the CIT(A) and
orders have been passed against principle of natural justice. In
view of above discussion,we are inclined to hold that the assessee
should be allowed an opportunity of hearing at the level of the
Assessing Officer. Therefore, the case is restored to the file of the
Assessing Officer to the assessment stage for framing denovo
assessment order after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the
assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to conduct assessment
proceedings without being prejudice from the earlier assessment
and first appellate order and providing due opportunity of hearing
to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with
the Assessing Officer and failing of which, he will face the
consequences. Accordingly, Ground Nos.1 to 6 of the appeal are
allowed for statistical purposes.
Since, we have restored the case to the Assessing Officer to
the assessment stage, therefore, other grounds of appeal on
merits have become infructuous and also not adjudicated upon.
P a g e 3 | 4
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced on 17/06/2019. Sd/- sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER
Patna; Dated 17 /06/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant :Jamadar Ansari, Village: Dumaria, PO: Kaurjhar, Via: Raxaul, Motihari
The Respondent. ITO, Ward 1(3), Motihari 3. The CIT(A)-1, Jamshedpur 4. Pr.CIT- 1, Jamshedpur 5. DR, ITAT, Patna 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Patna
P a g e 4 | 4
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026