What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the reasons for non-appearance satisfactory and set aside the ex parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee's counsel did not appear before the CIT(A) due to certain reasons.

What were the issues?

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

Mrs. Rakhi Parihar, Noida vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &, Shri Ashish Goel, CA

For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Hearing: 22.02.2017Pronounced: 22.02.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 25.01.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.

I have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The first ground of the appeal is against not granting adequate opportunity of hearing by the Ld. CIT(A).

It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. I have taken into consideration the reasons stated by the ld. AR for not appearing before the ld. first appellate authority, with which I am satisfied. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice will meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. I order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 22.02.2017.

MRS. RAKHI PARIHAR,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments