BAB LEATHER PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2360/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 October 2017AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, in the interest of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a stay petition and an appeal against an ex parte order of the CIT(A). The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and cited reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified and if the assessee was denied natural justice due to non-receipt of notices.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Pronounced: 20.10.2017

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is a Stay Petition filed by the assessee in for the AY 2014-15 and ITA No.2360/Mds/2017 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, in ITA No.178/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 dated 22.08.2017 for the AY 2014-15.

SP No.280/Mds/2017 (in & ITA No.2360/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:

2.

Mr.ARV. Sreenivasan, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Respondent and Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv., represented on behalf of the Appellant.

3.

It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee has filed the Stay Petition against the demand of Rs.14,59,948/- against which the assessee has already paid nearly Rs.12,06,652/- and the amount outstanding was Rs.3,54,010/-. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte. It was a submission that the assessee had no objection, if the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. It was a submission that the assessee had not received the notice issued by the Ld.CIT dated 19.05.2017 and in respect of the Notice dated 13.06.2017 posting the appeal for hearing on 13.07.2017, the Ld.CIT was on leave on the said date when the assessee’s counsel had appeared. It was a further submission that in respect of the notice dated 25.07.2017 posting the appeal for hearing on 08.08.2017, the assessee’s counsel had appeared and had filed an adjournment letter. However, the same has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

SP No.280/Mds/2017 (in & ITA No.2360/Mds/2017 :- 3 -: 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that the appeal of the assessee has been disposed off ex parte. The assessee has also explained the reasons for non- appearance before the Ld.CIT(A). This being so, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and we do so.

6.

In the result, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on October 20, 2017, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →