What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte orders were passed without proper service of notice and in violation of natural justice principles.

The assessee's appeals were filed against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. The assessee could not attend the hearings due to the death of her husband.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were valid in light of non-compliance with principles of natural justice and whether the matters should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

M.Manimegalai vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7,

ITA Nos.1104-06/2019. :- 2 -:

Chennai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 07.03.2019 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-2009.

Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 2. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order.

For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal in for assessment year 2006-2007 are stated herein.

4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:

‘’1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Chennai dated 07.03.2019 in I.T.A.No.31(T)/CIT(A)-7/2012-13 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.

The CIT (Appeals) erred in passing the order exparte without service of notice of hearing after transfer of the file from the jurisdictional appellate authority to the First Appellate Authority who decided the appeal exparte in the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the exparte order should be reckoned as bad in law in view of the gross defiance of the principles of natural justice.

3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the sustenance of the exparte assessment order on various grounds was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that the entire computation of taxable total income forming

ITA Nos.1104-06/2019. :- 3 -: part of the exparte assessment order was incorrect and erroneous in view of the non consideration of relevant materials, thereby vitiating the findings in para 7 of the impugned order.

The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the non consideration of each of the issues/additions made in the computation of taxable total income and challenged in the appeal filed would vitiate the exparte decision in pare 7 of the impugned order.

The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing’’.

From the perusal of the lower authorities order, we find that 5. that orders were passed exparte as none appeared in response to notice of hearing. It is stated that following the death of the husband after prolonged illness, assessee could not comply with the hearing notice. In the circumstances, it is prayed that orders of the lower authorities may be set aside and remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. We order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA Nos.1104-06/2019. :- 4 -: and 1106/Chny/2019 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 Since, the facts in the present appeals are identical to the 7. facts in for the reasons mentioned therein, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the lines indicated in appeal ITA No.1104/Chny/2019 supra. Hence, the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA 8.

Nos.1104, 1105 & 1106/CHNY/2019 for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 31st day of July, 2019, at Chennai.

M.MANIMEGALAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD I(4), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments