NAVIN MEDICAL HALL,SITAMARHI vs. ITO, WARD, SITAMARHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7/PAT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 March 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notices. The principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was emphasized.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-compliance. The assessee claims that no notices for hearing were served, leading to the dismissal without an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notice on the assessee. The validity of the addition made by the AO under Section 40(a)(ia) was also a point of contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH ‘SMC’, PATNA

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 09.03.2018Pronounced: 12.03.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH ‘SMC’, PATNA Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 07/Pat./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Navin Medical Hall, Vs Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Ward, Sitamarhi-843302 Sitamarhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHFN9256G Assessee by : Sh. Ashish Agrawal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2018 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 17.10.2017 of ld. CIT(A-1, Jamshedpur.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred both in facts & law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the opportunity to the appellant. 3. For that none of the notices fixing the date of compliance on various dates, have ever been served upon the appellant. 4. For that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO, merely on the ground that no compliance was made, by the appellant, without going on the records available with the AO. 5. For that the addition of Rs.434618.00, being the aggregate amount of Loan Interest of Rs.434618.00 paid to 4 persons and claim expenses on which TDS was deducted and paid on or before filing of its ITR, is unjustified and erroneous and therefore the same may be deleted.

ITA No. 07/Pat./2018 2 Navin Medical Hall 6. For that the disallowance of Rs.434618.00 on account of non-depositing of TDS on or before due date and was actually paid on or before filing of ITR online i.e. on 21.03.2013, is unjustified and arbitrary and therefore the same may be deleted.

7.

For that other ground or grounds may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 21.03.2013 declaring an income of Rs.1,54,534/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs.4,34,618/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and assessed the income of Rs.5,89,152/-.

4.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “Statutory notices were issued for fixing the date of hearing on 31.08.2016, 05.07.2017 and 12.10.2017. On the said dates none attended, no details were filed and also no adjournment letter was filed by the appellant.

2.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes.”

5.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order and dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

ITA No. 07/Pat./2018 3 Navin Medical Hall 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) on the face of the order has mentioned that none was present for the department or the assessee. It is also noticed that the ld. CIT(A) did not mention that notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the present case, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 12/03/2018)

Sd/- (N. K. Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12/03/2018 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →