What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer based on written submissions, despite the assessee's inability to appear. To meet the ends of justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was decided ex-parte. The assessee's authorized representative could not appear due to health reasons, and the assessee only became aware of the ex-parte order after receiving it.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee is sustainable.

Sri Chandrashekar B Aski, Bijapur vs ACIT | ITAT Bangalore 2019

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

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri RaviShankar S.V., Advocate

For Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Hearing: 10.12.2019Pronounced: 17.12.2019

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi passed under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has passed exparte order and prayed for an opportunity be 2 granted to represent the case before the appellate authorities with evidences. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order of CIT(Appeals).

We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The learned Authorised Representative has restricted the submissions on the exparte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) and emphasized that earlier the Authorised Representative was authorized for appearance but could not appear for various reasons and only after the assessee received the exparte order of CIT (Appeals) came to know about non-appearance. The assessee has substantial material evidences to controvert the additions made by the Assessing Officer and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). We found the CIT(Appeals) at para 4 has provided opportunity of hearing to the assessee but the then learned Authorised Representative could not appear on health grounds as envisaged by the learned Authorised Representative. Whereas the CIT (Appeals) based on the written submissions, has confirmed the additions of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

Hence we considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned Authorised Representative, are of the opinion that the revenue shall not at loss if an opportunity is provided to the assessee. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issue to the 3 CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate afresh and grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee and assessee shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds for statistical purposes.

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th Dec., 2019. (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17.12.2019. *Reddy GP Copy to 1. The appellant

The Respondent

CIT (A)

Pr. CIT

DR, ITAT, Bangalore.

Guard File

By order

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR B ASKI,BIJAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments