PINETREE PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX (A),20, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4524/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 January 2020AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte because the assessee did not appear. The assessee contended that they were not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The Revenue agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law due to lack of sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

CIT(A) – 20 M/s Pinetree Packaging Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. C-1002, Lotus Corporate बिधम/ Park, Ram Mandir Road, Vs. Off-W.E. Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AADCP4578J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Deepak Shah, AR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.12.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member:

1.

The present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax - 20 in short M/s Pinetree Packaging Pvt. Ltd. referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’, Mumbai, dated 22.04.10 for Assessment Year (in short AY) 2006-07.

2.

After hearing Ld. AR at some length, we noticed 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. Ld. AR further submitted that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.

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. Since assessee has submitted sufficient cause for non- M/s Pinetree Packaging Pvt. Ltd. appearance before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent its case.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and we notice that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by fixing the hearing on 23.03.10 and on record, that is the only hearing date. It shows that Ld. CIT(A) has given only one opportunity and since notice returned unserved with the remark ‘Left’, he chose to dismiss the appeal. 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 back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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 M/s Pinetree Packaging Pvt. Ltd. grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →