M/S DENTSU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1315/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 January 2020AY 2012-133 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 not decided the case on merits and, adhering to principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear on multiple hearing dates. The assessee contended that they were not provided sufficient opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Smt. Sowmya, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Hearing: 28.01.2020Pronounced: 29.01.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bangalore passed u/s .143(3) and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative argued that the learned CIT (Appeals) has not provided sufficient opportunity and passed an exparte order and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the case before the first appellate authority. Whereas the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of learned CIT (Appeals).

3.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee could not appear for various reasons. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the assessee ws provided sufficient opportunities. We found from the order of learned CIT (Appeals) at page 2 that the learned CIT (Appeals) has posted the case for hearing on 27.7.2017, 23.11.2017, 22.12.2017 & 17.1.2018 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore the learned CIT (Appeals) has passed the order dismissing for non- prosection of appeal. We, considering the principles of natural justice and the learned CIT (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits, set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT (Appeals) to adjudicate on merits. Further CIT (Appeals) should provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file evidences and documents in support of case and the assessee shall also co-operate in submitting the information as expeditiously for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of apepal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →