What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set-aside and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A).

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The ITAT noted a delay in filing the appeal before it, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

M/S. Strudcom Consultants Pvt.Ltd 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)-4, Pune on 11-09-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

There is a delay of 47 days in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR explained the reasons for delay. I am satisfied with the reasons so given. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal.

2 ITA No.1962/PUN/2018 M/s. Strudcom Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant

material on record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has passed

the order ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) did not give proper opportunity of hearing

and decided the appeal 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 the ld. CIT(A). I order

accordingly and direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal

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.1962/PUN/2018 M/s. Strudcom Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

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)-4, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune ि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. STRUDCOM CONSULTANTS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments