What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) as the assessee did not appear. The assessee claimed a lack of sufficient opportunity and a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to the AR's heart attack.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified and if the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Sanjeev Dharmendra Agarwal… vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

ITO ward – 4, Sanjeev Dharmendra Palghar, Maharashtra Agarwal, बिधम/ Pin- Malyan Vadkun Naka, Vs. Dahanu Road, Palghar Dahanu, Pin-401 602 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAZPA5727F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant None : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kiran Unavekar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24.02.2020 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member:

The present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3 in short referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’, Thane, dated 20.09.2018 for Assessment Year (in short AY) 2014-15. Sanjeev Dharmendra Agarwal,

At the outset, we notice that none appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of calls. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present in the court. Further we notice that assessee had not appeared before Ld. CIT(A), therefore Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order and now, assessee had challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that no sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee apart from other grounds mentioned in the grounds of appeals.

3. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has taken adjournments many times, however he agreed this may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.

Considering the rival submission and material placed 4. on record, we notice from the records that Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even though assessee has submitted sufficient cause for non-appearance before Ld. CIT(A) as the AR of the assessee was suffered heart attack, therefore the assessee has a reasonable cause and hence, in our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent his case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met only when we set aside the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. With these directions, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

SANJEEV DHARMENDRA AGARWAL,PALGHAR vs. ITO WARD -4, PALGHAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments