What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to be heard. The impugned orders were set aside as they were passed ex-parte without proper service of notice.

The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) as the assessee had shifted premises and did not receive notices. The assessee requested an opportunity to present their case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without ensuring proper service of notice on the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Yusuf Ismail Shaikh vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tapadiya

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Shri Rajesh Gawali

Hearing: 21.01.2019Pronounced: 22.01.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Pune for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2011-12, respectively. Both the impugned orders are of even date i.e. 03.05.2018.

Since the issue raised in both the appeals is similar, these appeals are heard together and are disposed off vide this common order.

2 ITA Nos.1281 &1282/PUN/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12

Shri Rohit Tapadiya appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted

at the outset that the impugned orders have been passed in an ex-parte

proceedings. The notice of the appeals was never served on the assessee as

the assessee had shifted to the new premises. The Ld. AR submitted that

an opportunity may be granted to the Assessee to present the merits of

case before the First Appellate Authority.

On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Gawali representing the Department

submitted that notice of the appeals were sent to the assessee on the

address mentioned in Form No. 35. The assessee never intimated his fresh

/ new address by filing revised Form No. 35, therefore, the action of

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in passing ex-parte order cannot be

faulted.

Both sides heard. Orders of the Authorities below perused. The

addition in both the assessment years under appeal has been made on

account of bogus purchases. A perusal of the impugned order shows that

notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee, however, it is not

emanating from the impugned orders that the notice was ever served on

the Assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed

the addition made by AO in an ex-parte proceedings. It is a well settled

principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard and

fair opportunity should be given to the parties to the lis. Without

commenting on the merits of the addition, we deem it appropriate to

restore this appeal back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh after allowing reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the assessee / appellant, in accordance with law.

3 ITA Nos.1281 &1282/PUN/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12

Since in both the Assessment Years i.e. AY 2009-10 and 2011-12, the impugned orders have been passed at the back of the assessee / appellant, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 22nd day of January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; �दनांक/ Dated : 22nd January, 2019 Bidhan आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant. 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 2. 2. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य मामला” ब�च, 5. पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल/ Guard File. 6.

//True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण, पुणे/ ITAT, Pune.

YUSUF ISMAIL SHAIKH,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments