Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for hearing and requested one opportunity to present their case.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had granted opportunities, the order was ex-parte. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGARAO & SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 07/01/2025 Date of Order – 27/01/2025
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 02/05/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.
In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the prevailing law, the order framed u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified, bad-in-law, and devoid of proper reasoning. 2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the prevailing law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided an opportunity of being heard before framing the order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 Indounique Flame Ltd. ITA no.361/Nag./2024
3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the prevailing law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.1,29,08,000/- u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the prevailing law, the e prevailing law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. A.O. in interpreting the application of provisions of sec 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 to specified capital assets.
That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the prevailing law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order and contention of the Ld. A.O. that the assessee is the absolute owner of the land under consideration, whereas, the assessee holds merely leasehold rights. 6. That, the assessee carves to, leave to, add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete, and/or, rescind any of the ground/grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal.
3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned A.R. appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity for hearing and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the learned CIT(A).
2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one
3 Indounique Flame Ltd. ITA no.361/Nag./2024 opportunity should be given to the assesse to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A). In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/01/2025