What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. The Tribunal agreed to restore the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte because the assessee did not appear for hearings. The assessee claimed they never received notices at their new address, despite informing the department of the change.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and in violation of natural justice principles.

Manish Sohanraj Bafna vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya, AR

AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-30/19(2)(3)/82/2015-16 dated 20.04.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(3), 2 Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide dated 13.02.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has decided the appeal by an ex-parte order but, the assessee has never received any notices for fixation of appeal, though the assessee requested for change to new address vide letter dated 16.11.2017. The notice was never served on new address. Therefore, assessee could not attend the hearing before CIT(A). For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 1 & 2: -

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A)-30, Mumbai has erred in dismissing the appeal by passing an ex- parte order due to non-appearance of anyone of the dates fixed for hearing before the Learned CIT(A). The impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A)-30, Mumbai has erred by issuing notice for hearing in ITNS-37 dt.20.03.2018 fixing hearing on 19.04.2018 on old address. Though change of appellant’s residential address was brought to notice through letter drd. 16.11.2017 file don 16.11.2017.”

MANISH SOHANRAJ BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

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