SHRI HIREN R. GAJJAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1455/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 September 2017AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the DCIT and CIT(A) did not consider their submissions regarding AIR/CIB information and denied an adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and adjournment request, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Pramod Kumar, AM:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has called into question correctness of ex-parte order dated 11th February 2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows:- “1. The order of the learned DCIT, Circle-8, A’bad who has made additions of Rs.1,44,443/- and uphold by CIT(Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad is bad in law and on fa

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →