What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and confirmed the additions without proper adjudication. The Departmental Representative agreed to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing an opportunity to be heard. The assessee had requested details from the CIT(A)'s office but received no communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The validity of an ex-parte order passed without affording a hearing.

Deepak Shah vs ACIT | s.143(3) | ITAT Mumbai 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 19.03.2019Pronounced: 19.03.2019

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)-44, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-44/ACIT 32(1)/ITA-238/2013-14 vide order dated 22.12.2016. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25(1), Mumbai (in short ‘ACIT/ITO/ AO’) for the ITAs No. 916/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 26.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

We have noticed from the grounds of appeal

raised before us that the CIT(A) decided the issue ex-parte without providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and even no communication from the office of CIT(A) was received regarding fixation of appeal. For this assessee has raised the following three grounds: -

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing ex-parte order without giving proper opportunity to the Appellant.

2. The Appellant vide their representative's letter dated 18.01.2017 which was submitted to Commissioner's office on 23.01.2017. the Appellant had asked for certain details from the Commissioner's office. Copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith for your ready reference.

3. However, till date the Appellant has not received any communication from Commissioner's Office.

Considering the facts stated above, the Appellant craves that the order of' the Commissioner be set aside."

DEEPAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(1), 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