What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits is not permissible. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without considering the merits. The assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for their absence before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can pass an ex-parte order without disposing of the appeal on merits, and if the assessee can demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance.

B.R. Nirmala vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri H.Guruswamy, ITP

For Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)

Hearing: 16/07/2019Pronounced: 16/07/2019

Appellant by : Shri H.Guruswamy, ITP. Respondent by : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 16/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 16/07/2019 O R D E R Per J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: These are appeals by the assessee directed against two orders of the CIT(A)-I, Bengaluru, both dated 22/02/2019 for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The CIT(A) has passed ex-parate order. He has not disposed of the case on merits. This is not permissible under law. The learned counsel for assessee demonstrated that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for appearing before the CIT(A).

Under these circumstances, we restore both the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. & 950/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 2 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2019.

B.R. NIRMALA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments