What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper hearing. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an ex parte order.

Bharatlal Rampal Karwa, Barshi vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Shriniwas M. Vaidya

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A)-7, Pune on 03-05-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2004-05.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. AR stated that the ld. CIT(A) did not give proper opportunity of hearing and decided the appeal ex parte. I am satisfied with the reasons of absence of the assessee during the first appellate proceedings. In view of the foregoing facts, I am of the considered opinion

2 ITA No.2359/PUN/2017 Bharatlal Rampal Karwa

that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned

order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld.

CIT(A). I order accordingly and direct the ld. CIT(A) to

decide the appeal afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th December, 2018.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 11th December, 2018 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-7, Pune आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-6, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // 6.

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.2359/PUN/2017 Bharatlal Rampal Karwa

Date 1. Draft dictated on 10-12-18 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 10-12-18 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.

BHARATLAL RAMPAL KARWA,BARSHI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), SOLAPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Latest GST High Court judgments