What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(Appeals) without providing adequate opportunities for hearing. The assessee's representative argued that they did not receive subsequent hearing notices after the first adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without granting sufficient opportunities for hearing to the assessee.

Hubert Joseph Jude Aruldoss vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai in ITA No.17/2015-16/A.Y 2012-13/CIT(A)-2, dated 10.03.2018 for the assessment year 2012-13.

Mr.Meenakshi sundaram represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.Clement Ramesh Kumar represented on behalf of the Revenue.

At the time of hearing, the ld.A.R filed a written submissions dated 08.10.2018 as follows:-

“I.T.A. Nos. 1544/Chennai/2018 Assessment year 2012-2013 Submissions on behalf of the appellant.

The assessee received only one hearing notice. Assessee’s representative Sri. Fernando appeared for the same and took an adjournment. Thereafter the assessee did not receive any hearing notice from the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) states that he had given too many opportunities. The order does not say on what dates the case was posted for hearing more than once and how the assessee did not respond on all the dates. In the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the column date of hearing it has been stated that hearings were fixed as per order sheet. The order sheet is a departmental record and the assessee has no access to the same. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given details of the dates of hearings, dates of service of the said hearing notices etc it is not possible to explain under what circumstances there had been no response to the hearing notices. There is no transparency in the Commissioner’s order regarding the failure of the assessee to respond to the hearing notices. It is therefore submitted that the matter may be restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for one more opportunity to explain the various aspect of the additions. The undersigned undertakes to appear before the Commissioner (Appeal and co-operate with the department.

(K. Meenakshisundaram) Income tax Practitioner.”

It was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee may be granted an another opportunity to represent his appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

In reply, the ld.D.R vehemently supported the order of the CIT(Appeals).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals) shows that the appeal has been disposed of by the Ld.CIT(A) as ex parte. Considering the written submissions filed by ld.A.R and in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

09th Order pronounced on October, 2018, at Chennai.

HUBERT JOSEPH JUDE ARULDOSS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments