MEENA ASHOK TOLANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

The only grievance by the assessee before me is with regard to the ex–parte disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the assessee has not received any notice of hearing from learned Commissioner (Appeals).

The learned Departmental Representative submitted, though, opportunity was given to the assessee, however, she did not avail it.

Having considered rival submissions, I find from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) that, though, he has mentioned that the appeal was posted for hearing on 20th March 2019, however, there is nothing in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) to suggest that any notice of hearing was issued and served on the assessee. Further, as it appears from the said order, the appeal was fixed for the first time on 20th March 2019 and disposed off on 22nd March 2019, that too, ex–parte without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Having gone through the facts on record, I am of the firm opinion that there is clear violation of natural justice as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee while deciding the appeal. In view of the aforesaid, I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to his file for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.