SRI. U S SIDDALINGAPPA,MYSURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MYSURU), MYSURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 728/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 April 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the rectification application without granting a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an application under Section 154 seeking clarification from the CIT(A) regarding previous observations. The CIT(A) rejected this application without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by rejecting a Section 154 application without providing a hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Shri. Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Hearing: 07.04.2021

O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, Judicial Member: Present appeal is filed by assessee arising out of order dated 30/06/2020 passes by Ld.CIT(A) for assessment year 2011-12. At the outset Ld.AR submitted that, assessee had filed an application under section 154 in order to seek certain clarifications in respect of the observations made by Ld.CIT(A) in order dated 26/07/2019. However Ld.CIT(A) passed order under section 154 of the Act rejecting the rectification application filed by assessee.

2.

It has been submitted that, the said impugned order has been passed by the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 30/06/2020, without Page 2 of 3 giving opportunity of being heard to assessee. Ld.AR thus submitted that there is a violation of principle of natural Justice in passing the impugned order by Ld.CIT(A).

3.

On the contrary, Ld.DR supported the orders passed by authorities below.

4.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

5.

We note that assessee was not granted opportunity of being represented in the 154 proceedings. Ld.CIT(A) has some really rejected the application without even considering the issues raised by assessee.

6.

Under such circumstances we deem it fit and proper to remand this issue back to Ld.CIT(A). We direct Ld.CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order by granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee in accordance with law.

7.

Accordingly grounds raised

by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

8. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court 07.04.2021.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →