What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). This was to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte for non-appearance and non-submission of arguments, despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) order was also noted as non-speaking.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without a speaking order, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Divya Rajen Mehta vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2020

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Anil K. Shah

For Respondent: Ms. Joti Lakshmi Nayak

Hearing: 29/01/2020Pronounced: 29/01/2020

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 01.03.2018 for assessment year 2011-12 which in turn has arisen from order of Assessing Officer passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 27.03.2014.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Senior DR stated that the order of CIT(A) is ex parte and even a non-speaking order. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 6.2 of Divya Rajen Mehta the order of CIT(A), wherein the CIT(A) has just dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under :-

“6.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, even after affording opportunity for 5 times, appellant could not made any submissions or attend the hearing in person or through her A.R to present her case. In the absence on the part of the appellant to put forth her arguments in support of the Grounds of Appeal, in spite of being given sufficient opportunities over a period of time, the only choice left is to confirm the addition made by A.O. Accordingly Ground No. 1 to 4 are ‘Dismissed’.”

3. We noted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee without passing a speaking order just for the absence of the assessee, i.e. for default of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Senior DR agreed that the matter can be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee and also for passing a speaking order on merits. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2020.

DIVYA RAJEN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI

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