What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were decided ex-parte and the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were decided ex-parte without adequate opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed non-speaking orders without discussing the merits of the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and whether the order was a speaking order on merits.

Bhuleshwar T. Mishra vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi, AR

Hearing: 26.11.2019Pronounced: 26.11.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 7590/Mum/2016

ITA No. 7589/Mum/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

These appeals of assessee are arising out of the different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Thane

2 | P a g e Shri Bhuleshwar T. Mishra & 7590/Mum/2016 [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. Pn./CIT(A)-11/DCIT Cen Cir 2, Thane/51,53/2015-16 vide dated 08.11.2016. The Assessments were framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Centre-2, Thane (in short DCIT/ AO) for the A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 vide orders dated 27.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

At the outset, it is noticed that in both the appeals the assessee has raised identically worded grounds regarding violation of principle of natural justice and passing order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised in both the years are as under: - “For AY 2011-12

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard.

For AY 2009-10

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard.”

3 | P a g e Shri Bhuleshwar T. Mishra & 7590/Mum/2016 3. On this point, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte and the relevant observation in AY 2011-12 read as under: -

3. None has attended on behalf of the appellant but written submissions have been filed on 02.11.2016 vide letter dated 25.10.2015. The written submissions are common for all the asst years from 2007-08 to 2013-15. As the hearing notices were issued more than a dozen times and the appellant has chosen not to represent except for the written submissions, the appeal is being disposed off considering the written submissions.

Even, we noted that the order of CIT is a non-speaking order and he has not discussed the merits regarding addition. When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he fairly stated that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we noted that the appeals were decided ex-parte without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Even, the orders passed by CIT(A) is not a speaking order on merits. In the light of these facts, we restore these two appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that the CIT(A) will provide a reasonable opportunity of

BHULESHWAR T. MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, THANE

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