S.A.THOOYAMANI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) despite the assessee's counsel appearing on one occasion and seeking adjournments on others. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) did not consider their submissions and requested a re-adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions and granting a proper opportunity of being heard.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BENCH : These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai (hereinafter called as ‘CIT(A)’) in 474, 473, 497, 476/14-15 dated 14.03.2019 for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08.
to 1287/Chny/2019 :- 2 -: 2. Mr. Arjunaraj, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte. It was a submission that the appeals of the assessee were posted for hearings on four occasions. On the first two occasion, the assessee had sought adjournments through email. On the third occasion the Counsel had appeared in person and had filed a written submission. On the fourth occasion, the assessee’s Counsel had sought adjournment as he had appeared and had represented the appeals in the case of a group concern. It was a submission that the learned CIT(A) had not considered the submissions made by the assessee in the third hearing. It was a prayer that the issues in the appeal may be sent to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objections.
We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
The learned Authorized Representative has placed evidences to show that he has sought adjournment and that he has appeared before the learned CIT(A) on two occasions. In the circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the learned to 1287/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th November, 2019 in Chennai.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026