Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was directed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) on 03/12/2024. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order in haste without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Notices were issued with insufficient time for response, and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution rather than on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) issued notices with inadequate time for the assessee to respond and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution?
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.184/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2023-24) Geovista Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Private Limited, Hyderabad Ward 2(1) PAN:AACCJ0412A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA Sumitra Nandan राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03/12/2024 of the learned CIT (A)/ADDL/JCIT(A)-12 Delhi, for the A.Y.2023-24.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ The Learned CIT(A) has totally erred in passing the impugned ex parte order, in undue haste and without
ITA 184 of 2025 Geovista Technologies P Ltd affording your appellant a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its stand. The learned CIT(A) has exhibited undue haste in conforming the demand of the learned AO, and having posted the matter for hearing on 03rd December 2024 has passed the impugned order on 03rd December 2024 itself, thereby denying any opportunity to your appellant to represent in the matter. That the impugned order liable to be set aside on grounds of natural justice and ex parte, is also liable to set aside on merits of the matter. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in reducing the TDS Credit of the assessee. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in assuming that the appellant has earned a higher income as per 26AS statement as compared to revenue recognized in the audited accounts That the Learned CIT(A) has erred is not considering that the total income of the assessee at Rs. 11.02 Crores stood offered as per the audited statement after adjusting the amount of unbilled income Your appellant reserves the right to add/modify the grounds of appeal at its option.”
At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte without giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The learned AR has pointed out that the matter was listed for hearing on 3/12/2024 and the impugned order was passed on the same date denying any opportunity to the assessee to represent the matter. Therefore, the learned AR of the assessee has pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Page 2 of 4
ITA 184 of 2025 Geovista Technologies P Ltd record of the learned CIT (A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee on merit after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
On the other hand, the learned DR has not seriously objected to the prayer of the assessee for remand of the matter to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. We find that the learned CIT (A) has given the details of the notices issued to the assessee on 21/11/2024 and 27/11/2024. Thus, only 2 notices were issued which were within a span of 1 week shows that the assessee was not given even one week time to respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT (A). Further, the learned CIT (A) has not decided the issue raised by the assessee on merits but the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, when the appeal of the assessee was not decided by a speaking order and on merits, then in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
ITA 184 of 2025 Geovista Technologies P Ltd
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.