What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper substantiation of notice service to the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee filed a return of income, and the AO framed an assessment at a higher income by passing an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without discussing the issues on merit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and without adjudicating the issues on merit.

Amarnath Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs ITO | ITAT Patna 2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Suman, Adv

Hearing: 09.03.2018Pronounced: 4.03.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH ‘SMC’, PATNA Before Sh. N. K. Saini, A M ITA No. 27/Pat./2018, Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Amarnath Prasad, ITO, Ward-1, Muzaffarpur. Muzaffarpur. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEKPP 5695J Assessee by : Shri Hitesh Suman, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 4.03.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11.11.2017 of ld. CIT (A), Muzaffarpur.

The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without discussing the issues on merit. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income n 31.03.2003, declaring a total income of Rs.40,540/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs.3,98,225/- by making the various additions, by passing an ex- parte order u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

ITA No. 27/Pat./2018 2 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A), who

dismissed the appeal in-limine without discussing the issues on merit.

Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

submitted that not notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. Therefore, the ld.

CIT(A) was not justified in passing the impugned order and dismissing the appeal ex-

parte.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the impugned order passed

by the ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld.

CIT(A) although mentioned that the notices issued for hearing on various dates were not

complied. However, nothing is brought on record to substantiate that any of the notice

issued to the assessee was served upon him. It is well settled that nobody should be

condemned unheard as per the maxim audi alteram partem. I, therefore, 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.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 05/03/2018)

Sd/- (N. K. Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 27/Pat./2018 3

Dated:14/03/2018 S.Sinha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

AMARNATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MUZAFFARPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments