IDEACOUNT EDUCATION P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3193/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 September 2017AY 2012-132 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 set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues afresh after hearing the assessee, promoting the cause of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee did not appear. The assessee claimed to have filed detailed written submissions which were not considered by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the assessee's written submissions is valid. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K. Hakani
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari
Hearing: 13.9.2017Pronounced: 13.9.2017

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the ex-parte order dated 06-01-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-4, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte, on the reasoning that the assessee did not appear before him. He submitted that the assessee has been seeking time whenever it received notice of hearing. On the last occasion, i.e., on 23.01.2017, the assessee filed a detailed written submission before the Ld CIT(A). However the Ld CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without considering the written submissions. Accordingly he prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case properly before Ld CIT(A).

3.

The Ld D.R did not object to the plea put forth by Ld A.R.

4.

Having heard rival submissions, I am of the view that all the matters urged by the assessee needs to be restored to the file of Ld CIT(A), since I

2 M/s. Ideacount Education Pvt. Ltd. notice that the assessee has filed written submissions which has not been considered by Ld CIT(A). In any case, affording one more opportunity to the assessee would promote the cause of justice, since the Ld CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. Accordingly I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh after hearing the assessee. I also direct the assessee to co-operate with Ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

5.

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

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 13.9.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →