M/S. STI PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 322/BANG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 January 2021AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) without proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee also disputed an addition of Rs. 10.94 Crores and sought set-off of losses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Singh Solanki, C.A
Hearing: 28.01.2021

O R D E R PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore Dt.31.01.2019 for the Assessment Year is 2008-09.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “ 1. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in passing an exparte order inspite of the fact that the counsel of the appellant attended various hearings and submitted detailed submissions before learned CIT (Appeals). The order so passed without considering the submissions of the appellant is against principle of natural justice. The same, therefore require to be quashed.

2. Without prejudice to the above, that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.10.94 Crores made by the A.O. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the value so adapted at Rs.10.94 Crores being wrong, the same require to be taken at Rs.4.21 Crores as correctly declared by the assessee.

3. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in maintaining non-allowance of set off of losses is to be allowed as per law.”

3.

At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that on appeal the CIT (Appeals) has passed ex parte the order without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of CIT (Appeals).

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have gone through the order of CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) has passed ex parte order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of this, we remit to the file of CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee. Since we have remitted the matter to the file of CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, we are refrained to go into the other grounds of appeal

. It is ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →