ANURADHA REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 12 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4792/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that they did not receive the notice of hearing. In the interest of justice, the ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they never received the notice of hearing, preventing them from complying. The ITAT noted the ex-parte nature of the order and the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The primary issue was the non-receipt of hearing notice by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged the correctness of the exparte order dated 07.05.2019, passed by the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015- 16.

2.

It is noted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order. The assessee has submitted by way of an Affidavit dated 16.01.2020 that the notice of hearing dated 22.04.2019 was never received by the assessee and, therefore, he could not comply with the Assessment Year:2015-16 Page 2 of 3 notice. He has submitted that in the event of the matter being sent back to the ld. CIT(A), he will ensure scrupulous compliance with the notice of hearing.

3.

The Ld. DR has not raised any objection on the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order and that the assessee’s non compliance is due to no notice having been received by him. Clearly thus, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that the request of the assessee's counsel deserve to be accepted. Hence, we accept the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and accordingly, set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →