What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite notice, leading to ex-parte orders. The assessee's ground of appeal was that a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and if not, whether the ex-parte orders should be set aside.

Renu Anil Goel vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2018

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Hearing: 05.11.2018Pronounced: 06.11.2018

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश

PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

These two appeals by the assessee relate to the A.Yrs. 2004- 05 and 2006-07. Since both the appeals are based on similar facts, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the side of the assessee despite notice. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the orders ex- parte qua the assessee. The assessee has raised a ground that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of the foregoing facts, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). I order accordingly and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity

ITA Nos.2905 & 2906/PUN/2017 Renu A. Goel

of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that in such fresh

proceedings the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh

evidence in support of her case, as desired expedient.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th November,

2018.

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

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 06th November, 2018 सतीश

आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-1, Kolhapur 3. आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-1, Kolhapur 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR 5. ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

// True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy //

Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune *

RENU ANIL GOEL,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11, SANGLI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments