M/S CAMSON BIO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1441/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 September 2019AY 2014-152 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee received a notice for a hearing on April 30, 2019, but it was delivered on May 3, 2019, after the CIT(A) had already passed an ex parte order on April 30, 2019. The assessee argued that they were not given an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an ex parte order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-C’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. A
For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the ex parte order of CIT (A) – 2, Bengaluru dated 30.04.2019 for A. Y. 2014 – 15.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that only one date of hearing was fixed by CIT (A) on 30.04.2019 as noted by CIT (A) in Para 3 of his order. He submitted that notice dated 23.04.2019 was issued by CIT (A) for the hearing fixed by him on 30.04.2019 but this notice was received by the assessee on 03.05.2019 but the impugned order was passed by CIT (A) on 30.04.2019 itself. He submitted that under these facts, the ex parte order passed by CIT (A) should be set aside and the matter should be restored back to his file for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A).

3.

I have considered the rival submissions. I find that learned CIT (A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Hence, I set aside his ex parte order and restore back the matter to his file for a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage and I do not make any comment on merit.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →