Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without ensuring proper service of hearing notices, violating principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) could not prove valid service of hearing notices on the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the ex parte order and remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide a fresh and meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid if the notices for hearing were not properly served on the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
Asst.Year 2017-2018 Nirmalabhavan Higher Secondary The Income Tax Officer School, Devasom Board Junction Exemption Ward v. Kowdiar, Nanthancode Thiruvananthapuram. Trivandrum – 695 003. PAN : AABTN5305Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2025 Date of Hearing : 19.05.2025. O R D E R
Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM :
The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre / learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 23.10.2024, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069878229(1) and relates to the assessment year 2017- 2018.
At the outset, it is observed that the impugned order is an ex parte order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as not following the mandate of sec.250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter).
Today, when this matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared from the side of the assessee despite the service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits, after hearing the learned DR.
The learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue could not be able to explain as to why the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte.
We have heard the Ld DR and perused the material available on record. We observe that the ld.CIT(A) in para 4 of the impugned order, has mentioned that he has issued six notices of hearing to the assessee, out of which one notice pertains to the period Covid-19 pandemic, i.e., 28th January, 2021, so no cognizance can be given to this notice. Rest of all the notices issued within the short span of time. Further, the ld.CIT(A) failed to point out as to whether any notice of hearing was actually served upon the assessee. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case that no notice of hearing has been validly served upon the assessee, we are of the firm opinion that this matter requires fresh consideration at the end of the ld.CIT(A). Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 20th day of May, 2025.