What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were breached, as the assessee was not heard properly. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee argued that the non-appearance was for valid reasons and requested a remand for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Vasantlal R. Maniar vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Meena, JCIT

Hearing: 21.06.2016Pronounced: 22.08.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee on 22.12.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-2, Mumbai dated 21.7.2014 for the assessment year 2008-2009. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1.1. The ld CIT (A) erred in passing the order as ex-parte and without giving sufficient proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 1.2. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order is required to be held as bad in law. 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in computing the capital gain without giving deduction on account of cost of acquisition. 2.2. It is submitted that, otherwise also, in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the computation of the capital gain by the AO was not in accordance with the law.”

2. The core issue raised in this appeal relates to the breach of principles of natural justice. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that none appeared before the CIT (A) in connection with the order dated 21.7.2014, which emanated from the AO’s order dated 26.3.2013. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings before the Tribunal, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order was decided ex parte and the non-appeareance is not without any valid reasons. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal may grant one more opportunity for appearing before the CIT (A) and requested for remanding the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh consideration in the matter. Ld Counsel for the assessee promised for the cooperation before the CIT (A).

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the decision of the Tribunal dated 29.1.2016 in the first round of the proceedings, I find, the Tribunal also remanded the matter to the file of the AO for de novo determination of the issue after allowing proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Para 10 of the said Tribunal’s order is relevant in this regard. On perusal of the above facts, I find that the directions of the ITAT (supra) are not meaningfully carried by the AO / CIT (A) and the assessee was not heard as per the set principles of natural justice. Therefore, I am of the opinion the matter should be remanded to the CIT (A) for deciding the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. I order accordingly. Assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT (A) without fail. Accordingly, grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2016. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 22.8.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीराथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.

VASANTLAL R. MANIAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(3)(4), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments