What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a one-day delay, which was condoned. Both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were valid without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

M/S. Mayakka Construction, Sangli vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur on 15-10-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09.

There is a delay of one day in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR explained the reason for delay. I am satisfied with the reason so given. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal.

2 ITA No.1926/PUN/2018 M/s. Mayakka Construction

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant

material on record. It is seen that the AO as well as the ld.

CIT(A) have passed the orders ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the AO/CIT(A) did not give proper

opportunity of hearing and determined the issues ex parte. In view of the foregoing facts, I am of the considered opinion

that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned

order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I

order accordingly and direct the AO to make the assessment

afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of

being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th February, 2019

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 20th February, 2019 सतीश

ITA No.1926/PUN/2018 M/s. Mayakka Construction

आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Kolhapur िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 19-02-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 19-02-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *

M/S. MAYAKKA CONSTRUCTION,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), SANGLI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments