What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte 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.

Deepak Bansal, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

Hearing: 21.06.2018Pronounced: 22.06.2018

Sh. Deepak Bansal, Vs. ITO, Ward-46(1), Prop. M/s Sanghi Trading New Delhi Co. Delhi-110006 PAN: AOOPB0157K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Gurjeet Singh, 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)-16, New Delhi on 30.11.2017 in relation to assessment year 2013-14.

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.

DEEPAK BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(1), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments