What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had appeared on earlier dates but was not heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

The assessee filed a stay petition seeking to stay an outstanding demand. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, and despite appearing on earlier dates, the assessee was not heard and was sent back.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sri.Rangaswamy Hanumegowda vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

For Appellant: Shri P. Dinesh, Advocate

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, ACIT (DR)

Hearing: 23.02.2018Pronounced: 26.02.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

S.P. No. 42/Bang/2018

ITA No. 373/Bang/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Date of hearing : 23.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member; This stay petition is filed by the assessee seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 19,55,747/-.

It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the order of CIT (A) is ex-parte qua the assessee and although the notice of hearing on 11.01.2018 was served on the assessee as per Para no. 3 of the order of CIT (A), but on that date, the ld. AR of assessee could not appear but on earlier two dates i.e. on 12.12.2017 and 05.01.2018, the ld. AR of assessee appeared before the CIT (A). He submitted that he was sent back without hearing and therefore, some more opportunity should have been provided by CIT(A) and hence, in the facts of the present case, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision and if that is done then the stay petition of assessee will become infructuous. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per para 3 of the order of CIT(A), the appeal was fixed for hearing on 12.12.2017 and adjourned to 05.01.2018 and again adjourned to 11.01.2018 and thereafter, the impugned

S.P. No. 42/Bang/2018 & Page 2 of 2 order was passed by him on 25.01.2018. This is the submission of the ld. AR of assessee before us that on earlier two dates i.e. 12.12.2017 and 05.01.2018, the assessee appeared before the CIT (A) but he was sent back without hearing and although he could not appear on the third date i.e. 11.01.2018, further opportunity should have been provided by CIT (A). In view of these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. We order accordingly.In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case and therefore, we do not make any comment on the merit of the case. In view of our above decision, we had decided the appeal of the assessee and hence, the stay petition has become infructuous and it is being dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed.

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

SRI.RANGASWAMY HANUMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments