What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper notice was served. The principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte for want of prosecution. The assessee contended that no notice for hearing was served, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Xtreme Sports Organisation, Noida vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 03.10.2018Pronounced: 03.10.2018

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.02.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That the C1T(A) has erred both on facts and in law by passing an ex-party order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act.

2. That the C1T(A) has passed the order without giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

3. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of 1/10th of the following expenses: a. Event management expenses Rs.69,83,381/- b. Fuel and petrol expenses Rs.2,93,764/- c. Travelling expenses Rs.94,644/- d. Telephone/mobile expenses Rs.46.109/- Total 74,17,898/-

Streme Sports Organisation 4. The appellant reserves to itself, the right to add, alter, amend, substitute and withdraw any Ground(s) of Appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. The main grievance of the assessee vide ground no. 2 relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring an income of Rs.19,17,478/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the disallowance of Rs.7,41,789/- being 1/10th of the expenses and accordingly assessed the income at Rs.26,59,270/-.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte by observing as under: “2. The appeal of the appellant was fixed for hearing for 31.05.2017 and again for 23.02.2018. There has been no response, Neither the appellant has entered appearance nor any request for adjournment has been received. As the appellant is not keen on prosecuting its appeal the same is dismissed for want of prosecution. The impugned assessment order stands dismissed.”

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 dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

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

Streme Sports Organisation 8. 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) nowhere stated that notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. He decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the same in limine. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to remand this issue 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, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 03/10/2018)

XTREME SPORTS ORGANISATION,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3, NOIDA

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