MR.AZEEZULLA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 39/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 February 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of justice to allow the assessee to raise additional grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to raise additional grounds. The CIT(A) passed the order on the day after the hearing was adjourned.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the order. Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Balakrishnan N. Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 27.02.2018Pronounced: 27.02.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A) - 7, Bengaluru dated 17.10.2017 for Assessment Years 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 7 grounds but in course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that the matter should be restored back to CIT (A) for a fresh decision because adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided by CIT (A). In support of this contention, my attention was drawn to Para 2 of the impugned order of CIT (A) and it was pointed out that in this Para, it is noted by CIT (A) that on request of the learned AR of the assessee for granting time to file additional grounds, time was allowed and the case was fixed on 16.10.2017. He submitted that admittedly, no one could appeal before CIT (A) on this date and he passed the impugned order on 17.10.2017. He conceded that this is a lapse on the part of the assessee but in the interest of justice, some more opportunity should have been provided by the CIT (A). He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to CIT (A) so that the assessee can raise additional grounds before CIT (A).

Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of CIT (A) but he did not raise serious objection against the request of the AR of the assessee to restore back the matter to CIT (A).

3.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the order of CIT (A). I feel that in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to CIT (A) for fresh decision. Accordingly, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the entire matter back to his file for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for on the merit and I do not make any comment on merit of the case.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →