What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that while notices were issued, there was no proof of service on the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order.

The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was heard by the ITAT. The CIT(A) had passed the order without the assessee or their representative appearing, despite multiple hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was bad in law due to lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard to the assessee.

Ravindra Bhootra, Chittorgarh vs ACIT | ITAT Jodhpur 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINIShri Ravinder Bhootra,

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, CA

For Respondent: DR Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal, CA

Hearing: 06.05.2019Pronounced: 06.05.2019

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.7.2018 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-

That the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex- parte is bad in law, specially when no notice served & received by undersigned.

Making addition of Rs. 13,65,412/- on basis of rent received on machinery but assessee done JCB work at party side on basis of contract.

Making addition of Rs. 2,70,334/- on account rent received on machinery but during the year assessee done only Rs. 33,369/- JCB work and amount total received including last year work done.

Vide ground No.1, the grievance of the assessee relates to ex-parte

order without serving the notice of hearing on the assessee.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed e-return of income in 30.3.2016 declaring an income of Rs. 15,44,270/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on the declared income. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 33,09,281/- by making various additions.

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

who sustained the additions made by passing an ex-parte order.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities

below.

Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. I have considered

the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte by observing in para 2 of the impugned order

as under:- "During the course of appellate proceedings, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 08.05.2018, 22.05.2018, 5.6.2018, 19.6.2018, 02.7.2018, 10.7.2018 and 18.7.2018. No one has attended on any of the dates of hearing and no written submissions has been filed. Therefore, the appeal is decided after going through the assessment order and grounds of appeal as under."

From the aforesaid noting of the Ld. CIT(A), it appears that few

notices fixing the case for hearing were issued, however, nothing is brought on record to substantiate that the notice of hearing 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.

10.

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

purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 06.05.2019) (N.K. SAINI) Vice President Dated : 06.05.2019 “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/

RAVINDRA BHOOTRA,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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