What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee had requested an adjournment to appoint a new representative and compile the paper book, but the CIT(A) passed the order before the adjournment period expired.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thereby denying natural justice.

Manoj D. Chitalia vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, AR

For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM (A.Y:2009-10) Manoj D. Chitalia Income Tax Officer B/17 Putlibai Kapole CHS Ltd, Ward No. 21(1)(3) 167/C S.V. Rd, Ville Parle (W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-56 PAN No. ADDPC4819M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 24-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 02-06-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-37, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-37/IT-315/ITO-25(3)(1)/14-15 dated 27-09-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-21(1)(3) Mumbai for the A.Y. 2009- 10 vide order dated Nil u/s 144 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that only issue in this appeal of CIT(A) is against passing of ex-parte order and denial of natural justice. For this he drew our attention to ground No.2 which reads as under: -

“2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not allowing the appellant sufficient opportunity of being heard and in passing the order ex-parte amounting to the denial of Natural Justice.”

The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that this matter was decided ex-parte vide order dated 27-09-2016, whereas the assessee asked for adjournment on 20-09-2016 stating that the Manoj D. Chitalia A.Y: 09-10 reason that the assessee has appointed a new authorities representative and accordingly, requires only 15 days time to compile the paper book. But the CIT(A) passed an appellate order itself on 27-09-2016. On query form the Bench, the learned Sr. DR has not opposed the issue of setting aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A).

After hearing both the sides, I find that CIT(A) has not allow proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and hence, in the interest of natural justice, remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide as per law. Needless, to say the CIT(A) will allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-06-2017.

MANOJ D. CHITALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments