CULTURE COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4542/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 October 2018AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to both parties and decide the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) because the assessee did not appear. The ITAT noted that neither party appeared diligently before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties. The need to decide the appeal on merits after due process.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Wagley
For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen
Hearing: 16.10.2018Pronounced: 16.10.2018

O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, JM

1.

This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 16.03.2017 and it relates to A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

At the outset of hearing the learned A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A), whereas it was the bounded duty of the assessee as well as the Department to appear before the learned CIT(A). In this case the assessee has not acted with due diligence. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice demands that the lis between the parties should be decided on merit after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met only when we provide more opportunity of hearing to the parties for contesting the appeal on merits. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion, we set aside the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore back the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a M/s. Culture Co. India P. Ltd. direction to provide opportunity of hearing to both the parties and then decide the issue afresh.

3.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16 October, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →