What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard on merits. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as the assessee did not appear for the hearing. The CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case, inferring lack of interest from the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits.

Mukesh K. Desai vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Hearing: 01/11/2017

ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-37, Mumbai dated 27/06/2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 29/04/2013.

(Assessment Year 2010-11 2. Although in this appeal, assessee has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the preliminary grievance is against the action of the CIT(A) in passing an ex-parte order without taking into consideration the say of the assessee.

Notably, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was finalized by the Assessing Officer at an income of Rs.2,31,88,490/- as against the returned income of Rs.18,33,434/-. The various additions/disallowances made were carried in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) notes that assessee did not put in appearance when the case was put up for hearing and he inferred that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, he proceeded to dispose of the appeal on the basis of facts on record and in that context he noted that the absence of the assessee showed that assessee had no material to substantiate the Grounds of appeal. Accordingly, he affirmed the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Before us, the Ld.Representative for the assessee submitted that the assessee would be satisfied if the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) and pointed out that on the appointed date of hearing an application for adjournment was moved before the CIT(A) as the concerned counsel was unwell and not available in the station; and the CIT(A) unjustly decided ex- parte. The Ld.Representative for the assessee pointed out that the letter of adjournment was duly moved and the acknowledgement copy of such letter dated 07/06/2016 has also been filed in the Paper Book before us.

The Ld. Departmental Representative has no objection, if the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer.

(Assessment Year 2010-11 6. Having considered the rival stands, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed all the Grounds raised by the assessee primarily noticing the absence of the assessee and has not discussed any of the issues on merits. Be that as it may, in our view, it would be in the fitness of things that the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to his file for adjudication afresh after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard on merits. Thus, without going into the merits of the various additions/disallowances, the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the appeal is restored back to his file to be adjudicated as per law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, as above.

MUKESH K. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments