What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee's counsel provided satisfactory reasons for this absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Naresh Bhatia, Faridabad vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Ms. Tripti Goel, Adv

Hearing: 21.06.2018Pronounced: 22.06.2018

Shri Naresh Bhatia Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Prop. M/s Bhatia Logistics Faridabad 1C/200, NIT, Faridabad PAN: ABQPB7077F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Tripti Goel, Adv Department By : Sh. B.R. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order passed by the learned CIT(A), Faridabad on 28.8.2015 in relation to assessment year 2011-12.

I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex parte order qua the assessee because of non appearance. The learned AR explained the reasons for such non-appearance, with which I am satisfied. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the learned first Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2018.

NARESH BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), FARIDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments