SHRIARUN MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(4), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 240/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 October 2023AY 2010-2011Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to participate in future hearings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11, which stemmed from an assessment order under Section 143(3). The assessee contended that notices for the first appeal hearing were sent via email but remained un-noticed, leading to their inability to attend the hearing.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the ex-parte order by the CIT(A), due to the assessee not noticing email notices, violated principles of natural justice, warranting a remand for a fresh hearing on merits.

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, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.09.2023Pronounced: 05.10.2023

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), N.F.A.C., Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 08.11.2017 passed by learned ITO, Ward-2(4), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case-records perused.

Shri Arun Mishra, Bhopal v. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal Assessment year 2010-11 3. Ld. AR for assessee, referring to Para No. 4 of the impugned order, submits that all notices of hearing of first appeal were sent by CIT(A) on the e-mail address of assessee but those notices remained un-noticed by assessee, therefore the assessee could not attend the hearing which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR submits that either there had been any physical service or had the e-mails come to the knowledge of assessee, the assessee would have certainly made compliance.

Ld. AR submits that the assessee is very much ready to make representation before CIT(A) and prays that the matter may be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld. DR does not have any objection but prays to direct the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. In view of such pleadings by parties and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee, uninfluenced by his earlier decision. We order accordingly. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Shri Arun Mishra, Bhopal v. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal Assessment year 2010-11

4.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.10.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →