DR KASARGOD BALAKRISHNA MALLYA,UDUPI vs. ITO (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4509/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2018AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's prayer for another opportunity. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside and the issues were restored for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming short-term capital gains was heard ex-parte. The assessee's legal representative sought adjournments twice before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri K. Prasad Upadhyaya
For Respondent: Shri Rajore Satishchandra R
Hearing: 16.10.2018Pronounced: 16.10.2018

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned CIT(A)-55, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in confirming the short term capital gains worked out by the Assessing Officer.

2.

The learned AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is no more and he is represented by his wife Mrs. Bharti Mallya. He submitted that the notice received from the learned CIT(A) was sent to the legal representative of the assessee, but the legal representative took adjournment twice before the learned CIT(A). Hence, the learned CIT(A) has proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. The Learned AR submitted that, considering peculiar circumstances of the case, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the learned CIT(A).

2 Dr. Kasargod Balakrishna Mallya

3.

We heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. Considering the circumstances of the case, we find merit in the prayer of learned AR. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the s is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 16.10.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →