What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating service of notices on the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 12,77,980/- with an addition of Rs. 2,25,000/-. The CIT(A) sustained the addition by passing an ex-parte order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Shri Bhagwan Lal Gehlot, Udaipur vs ITO | ITAT Jodhpur 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINIShri Bhagwan Lal Gehlot,

For Respondent: DR Assessee By Sh. Shrawan Gupta, Advocate

Hearing: 07.05.2019Pronounced: 07.05.2019

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated

20.09.

2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,

Udaipur.

Vide ground No.3, the grievance of the assessee relates to ex-parte

order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing due and reasonable

opportunity of being heard.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 22.8.2012 showing an income of Rs. 10,68,513/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer

framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 12,77,980/- by making the adhoc addition of Rs. 2,25,000/- by considering the commission paid to the travel agency as excessive.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)

who sustained the addition by passing ex-parte order. She mentioned in the impugned order that various notices of hearing were issued to the assessee, in response to which neither anybody attended nor filed any application for adjournment. The last notice was issued on 05.09.2018

for hearing on 18.9.2018. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)

had not given any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and no notice of hearing was received by the assessee.

In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr.DR supported the impugned

orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused

the material Available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte. She simply stated that the notices of hearing were issued to the assessee but nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the notice issued was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 07.05.2019) (N.K. SAINI) Vice President Dated : 07. 05.2019 “आर.के.” आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)

"वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील"यआ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 6. गाड"फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order सहायकपंजीकार/

SHRI BHAGWAN LAL GEHLOT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), UDAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments