What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they were denied an opportunity to present their case and lead evidence.

Parvin Bansal, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2020

Q: What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Mohindru, Advocate

This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-20], New Delhi dated 22.01.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. That the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in law and facts in as much as the assessee was denied opportunity to present his case and lead evidence.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities below have erred in law in presuming the service of the notices as alleged in the assessment order, prior to the commencement of the reassessment proceeding without ascertaining the fact as to whether the notices have been sent at correct and proper address of the appellant as such assessment made there-under is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

3. That appellant craves leave to amend, add, delete or modifies any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court. 5. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced on 19.02.2020. Sd/-

PARVIN BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(4), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments