What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was directed against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities were valid without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sachin Uttamrao Bhondave vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2018

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

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)-10, Pune on 14-07-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. It is seen that the AO and the ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders ex-parte qua the assessee. The assessee, vide the grounds in the appeal memo, has assailed that the AO/CIT(A) did not give proper opportunity of hearing and decided the case ex parte. In view of the foregoing facts, I am

2 ITA No.2366/PUN/2017 Sachin Uttamrao Bhondave

of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet

adequately if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is

restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the

AO to make the assessment 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)-10, Pune आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-4, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // 6.

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

ITA No.2366/PUN/2017 Sachin Uttamrao Bhondave

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. *

SACHIN UTTAMRAO BHONDAVE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments