What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity.

The assessee's appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) as the assessee's representative could not appear due to lack of authorization and the assessee being out of station. The assessee claimed the absence was due to reasons beyond their control.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Mohammed Sirjahmed Umachigi… vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2020

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

Before: SHRI B. R. BASKARAN & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, A.R

For Respondent: Shri Gollapinni Mallikarjuna, D.R

Hearing: 29.09.2020Pronounced: 29.09.2020

PER BENCH:

All the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A), Hubbali and they relate to the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18.

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte orders, without hearing the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that a Chartered Accountant named Shri Pawan Kumar, S/o Prakash Kulkarni appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) and sought for adjournment on the reasoning that he

Page 2 of 3 did not have letter of authorisation signed by the assessee, even though he is ready with the matter. It was submitted that the above said chartered accountant could not obtain letter of authorisation from the assessee, since the assessee had gone to Chennai and did not return by the date of hearing fixed by Ld. CIT(A). It appears that the Ld. CIT(A) has given final opportunity to the assessee earlier and hence he has proceeded to dispose of the appeals by observing that the assessee has failed to appear before him even though final opportunity was afforded. The Ld. A.R. submitted that Shri Pawan Kumar, Chartered Accountant has furnished an affidavit dated 4.6.2020 explaining the above factual aspects. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee intended to pursue the appeals and could not appear before Ld CIT(A) for reasons beyond his control. He submitted that the assessee would suffer irreparable loss, if adequate opportunity is not given to him to represent his matters before Ld CIT(A) properly. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to present his case before Ld. CIT(A).

We heard Ld. D.R. who submitted that the assessee has failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) despite several opportunities given and hence the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass order ex-parte.

We heard the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee did not get an opportunity to present his case before Ld. CIT(A). It is the submission of the assessee that he could not give letter of authorisation to a chartered accountant and hence the said person could not represent before the Ld. CIT(A), even though the said chartered accountant was ready with the matter. The object of appellate proceeding is to render justice to the aggrieved parties. In the facts narrated above, we are of the view that, in the interest of Page 3 of 3 natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before Ld. CIT(A). Affording one more opportunity to the assessee would, in fact, promote the cause of justice, for which the appellate forums exist.

Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) in all the years under consideration and restore all the issues to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to extend full cooperation to Ld. CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th Sept, 2020

MOHAMMED SIRJAHMED UMACHIGI SABEEL,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(4), HUBBALLI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments