GHARANDAJ BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21 (1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2504/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided sufficient opportunity for hearing. However, to ensure a fair hearing, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee sought adjournments on the first two hearing dates, but failed to appear on subsequent dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
Hearing: 15/10/2020Pronounced: 15/10/2020

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 14.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The only ground raised in appeal by the assessee is that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

Shri Ajay Pratap Singh representing the Department submitted that the CIT(A) gave notice of hearing of appeal to the assessee. On first two occasions,

M/s. Gharandaj Builders the assessee filed request letters for adjourning the appeal. On the request of the assessee, the appeal was adjourned and thereafter, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. The CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present the case, however, the assessee deliberately did not attend the proceedings. The CIT(A) was left with no option but to decide the appeal in ex-parte proceedings. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of CIT(A) and dismissing the appeal of assessee.

4.

I have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the impugned order shows that notice dated 21.09.2018 intimating the date of hearing on 05.10.2018 was duly served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed letter seeking adjournment. The appeal was accordingly adjourned to 25.10.2018. Again on the said date, the appeal was adjourned on the request of the assessee to 12.11.2018. Thereafter, on next two dates, i.e. 12.11.2018 and 12.03.2019, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, I deem it fit and proper to restore this appeal to the file of CIT(A) for de novo consideration after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

5.

The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the appellate proceedings. It is made clear that in case the assessee deliberately avoids the notice from the office of CIT(A) or without reasonable cause seeks adjournments or fails to appear either in person or through

M/s. Gharandaj Builders Authorised Representative before CIT(A), the CIT(A) is at liberty to take an adverse view. The impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms abovesaid.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 15th day of October, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →