SRI. SUNDER P JOTWANI,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HUBLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1328/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 February 2017AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was indeed ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the matter for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) had noted that notices sent to the assessee were returned as 'addressee not known'. The assessee's representative argued that no notice was actually served and requested a fresh opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex-parte without proper service of notice to the assessee should be set aside to provide an opportunity of being heard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. AR. V. Sreenivas, JCIT
Hearing: 14.02.2017Pronounced: 17.02.2017

Per A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This is an assessee’s appeal directed against the order of learned CIT (Appeals), Hubli dated 29.03.2016, for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:-

3.

It was submitted by learned AR of the assessee before me that this order of the CIT (A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. The learned CIT(A) is saying in his order that notice of hearing was issued to the assessee which was returned with the remarks “addressee not known”. Hence, the fact remains that no notice was served on the assessee and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The learned DR of the revenue supported the order of the CIT(A) and he also submitted that it is noted by the CIT(A) on pages 7 and 8 of his order that several notices were issued by him to the assessee and all have come back with the remarks ““addressee not known” and therefore, the assessee does not deserve to be given a fresh opportunity.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions. I find that it is noted by the CIT(A) on p ages 7 and 8 of this order that several notices were issued to the assessee on various dates but the notices have come back unserved and there was no appearance of anybody on the dates of hearing on behalf of the assessee. Hence, it is a fact that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. Now the learned AR of the assessee has undertaken in course of hearing before me that if the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, then appropriate compliance will be made. Under these facts, I feel that in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee and therefore, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore back the matter to his file for fresh decision after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the sides. I want to make it clear that in the 2nd ground, the assessee should make appropriate compliance. I also direct the assessee in the week starting on the end of two months from the date of this order if no notice of hearing is received by them from CIT(A), then the assessee should meet the learned CIT(A) himself or through his AR to find out the date of hearing and then make appropriate compliance. I also want to make it clear that I am expressing no opinion on any of the matter involved in the present appeal.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of February, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →