SHRI JOHN SUKUMAR EBENEZAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1993/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 August 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders and, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessees one more opportunity. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessees' appeals were against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessees' counsel submitted that they could not appear before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond their control and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessees were entitled to another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after ex-parte orders were passed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 26.08.2020Pronounced: 26.08.2020

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

These are two appeals filed by the Assessees against separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in & I.T.A. No.7(T-14)/CIT(A)-7/2018-19 both dated 31.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 respectively. & 1994/Chny/2019 :- 2 -:

2.

Mr. N. Arjunraj, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessees and Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Additional CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

When these two appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Assessees had submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed ex-parte orders and submitted that the assessees could not appear before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as circumstances were beyond his control. He prayed that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to substantiate their cases before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

4.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has not raised any objections.

5.

We have heard both the sides and perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.

6.

We find that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed different ex-parte orders both dated 31.05.2019. We are of the view that in the interest of justice and also by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the Assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the matters back to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. We further observe that the learned Counsel for the assessees is directed to & 1994/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: appear before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the date is given for hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessees in I.T.A.No.1993 & 1994/Chny/2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th August, 2020 in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →