Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH (SMC
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH (SMC), BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT (Assessment year: 2016-17) Shri Laxmilal Mittalal, No.337, 1st ‘N’ Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010. … Appellant PAN:AHOPM3594Q Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing: 25/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 26/07/2019 O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 30/4/2019 of the CIT(A)-2, Bengaluru, relating to assessment year 2016-17.
Against the various additions to the total income made in an order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 10/12/2018 the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal before CIT(A) was fixed for hearing by the CIT(A) on 30/4/2019. On that date none appeared on behalf of the assessee before CIT(A) and therefore, the CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte on merits. Finding no substance in the appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Ground No.2 raised by the assessee before the Tribunal reads as follows:
Page 2 of 2 “2. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that none appeared on the date of hearing. The appellant never received the notice of hearing, thereby deprived of opportunity of being heard. Thus the order passed is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.”
As far as ground No.2 is concerned, learned counsel for assessee reiterated stand of the assessee contained in ground No.2.
I have perused the order of the CIT(A) and I find that there is no reference to the service of notice of hearing on the assessee. Apart from the above, the date of hearing and the date of order are the same. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the assessee did not have proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) on merits, after affording an opportunity of being heard.