What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that only one notice of appeal was sent, and no further notice or opportunity of hearing was provided.

Amrut Kaluram Chand vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Q: What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri P.S. Shingte

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Pune dated 07-03-2018 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Shri P.S. Shingte appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in an ex-parte proceedings. The ld. AR pointed that only one notice of appeal was sent to the assessee. The ld. AR prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

Shri M.K. Verma representing the Department did not raise any objection in restoring the appeal back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Both sides heard. A perusal of the impugned order shows that in First Appellate proceedings notice of appeal was sent to the assessee. It is not emanating from the order whether the notice of appeal was served on the assessee or not. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) proceeded to decide the appeal without issuing further notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is a well settled principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. The ex-parte impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for deciding the same afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open Court after hearing of the appeal on Thursday, the 10th day of January, 2019. (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER

ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 10th January, 2019 RK आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-7, Pune

3.4.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Pune ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एक-सदस्य मामऱा” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत //// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

AMRUT KALURAM CHAND,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(4), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments