ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. HERITAGE METASTEEL PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 2827/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 April 2022AY 2014-153 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and to pass a reasoned order after considering the evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) or make any submissions, resulting in an ex-parte order that enhanced the addition made by the AO. The ITAT noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21.04.2022Pronounced: 22.04.2022

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITO Vs. M/s. Heritage Metasteel Pvt. Ward-2(1)(3), Ltd., 4, Kinjal House, 21 Ahmedabad-380009 Karnavati Soc, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013 [PAN No.AABCH9522Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 21.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2022 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2014-15.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal filed by the Revenue none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the Ld. DR appeared on behalf of the appellant.

It further appears that from the order impugned passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad that during the appellant proceeding neither the assessee appeared before the First Appellate Authority nor made any ITO vs. M/s. Heritage Metasteel Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2014-15 submission in support of the ground of appeal therein. The Ld. CIT(A) finally made addition of Rs. 4,28,95,258/- to the total income of the assessee whereas it is found that the AO made addition of Rs. 2,73,73,560/-. The fact of enhancement of addition to the total income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,55,21,698/- is through an ex-parte order as on record. Thus, the assessee ultimately has not been given the opportunity of being heard in respect of the issue involved in the appeal.

In that view of the matter, keeping in view the principle of natural justice and fair play we find it fit and proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction upon him to consider the case of the assessee and to pass a reasoned order upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidences on record and any other evidences which the assessee may choose to rely upon at the time of hearing of the matter. It is also made clear that no unnecessary adjournment would be sought for by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. Revenue’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →