MESERS UJAGAR MAL,SAT PAL,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAKODAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 445/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 January 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was processed, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made an addition of Rs. 5,98,960/-, which was later confirmed by the CIT(A) ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble & Sh. Ravish Sood

Hearing: 11.01.2019Pronounced: 17.01.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.445/Asr./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/s Ujagar Mal Sat Pal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Sh. Dinesh Sarna, Adv., Nakodar B-18, Vakil Building, Model Town Road, Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABFU3914C Assessee by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ankit Kumar Aggarwal, DR Date of Hearing : 11.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2019

ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without considering the submissions of the assessee.

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.08.2014 declaring an income of Rs.4,46,560/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Tax Act. Later on, the case

ITA No. 445/Asr./2018 2 Ujagar Mal Sat Pal was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.10,45,520/- by making the addition of Rs.5,98,960/-.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who passed the ex-parte order and sustained the additions made by the AO.

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice for hearing was not served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In his rival submissions, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee was non- cooperative and did not attend the proceedings whenever the case was fixed for hearing. Therefore, there was no alternative with the ld. CIT(A) except to decide the appeal of the assessee ex-parte.

7.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) mentioned in the impugned order that the case was fixed for hearing on 08.05.2018 and the notice was issued on 23.04.2018. However, nowhere it is mentioned that the said notice was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by considering the totality of the facts, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse.

ITA No. 445/Asr./2018 3 Ujagar Mal Sat Pal 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 17/01/2019)

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravish Sood) (N. K. Saini) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 17/01/2019 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →