Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant's appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to alleged failure to present its case despite notice. The appellant contended that the notices were never received or served, preventing them from presenting their case and arguing that the ex parte decision by CIT(A) without effective opportunity of hearing was illegal.
Held
The tribunal found that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee, and there was no proof of due service of notices. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an effective hearing to the assessee within 60 days.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex parte dismissal of the appeal without ensuring effective service of notice and providing an opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 250(2)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) /Addl. JCIT – 1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.08.2024 for the A.Y. 2011-12, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte as despite services of notice, the assessee failed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A).
It was argued on behalf of the appellant/assessee that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never received or served upon the assessee and as such they could not present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) who proceeded ex parte and decided the appeal on merit without giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and as such the assessee was prevented from present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and liable to be set aside. The Ld. DR on the other hand supporting the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions.Section 250 sub section 2(a) of "the Act" provides as under:
“Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal: - a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorised representative;”
It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. We have examined the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under: -
“The details of opportunities of being heard provided to the assessee, but the assessee has failed to comply the notices and no any written submission has been filed, which are tabulated below for ready reference: Sr. No. Date of notice issued Date of hearing 1 04.02.2021 19.02.2021 2. 09.02.2024 19.02.2024 3. 20.02.2024 27.02.2024 4 12.03.2024 20.03.2024 5 31.07.2024 12.08.2024
It is thus evident from the contents of the impugned order extracted above that no effective opportunity of hearing has been given and there is no proof that the notice sent on various dates were duly served or brought to the notice of the appellant/assessee.
For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that matter needs to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for giving effective hearing to the assessee who shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2024