What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the assessee's claim after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's counsel, authorized to appear before the CIT(A), was based in Chennai and could not attend later hearings, leading to an ex-parte order. The Revenue argued that the assessee should have arranged for another counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice.

Automobile Products of India Ltd… vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2015

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel

For Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain

Hearing: 09/12/2015

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09/03/2012 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. Though the assessee has raised many grounds but the crux of argument is that the ex-parte order has been passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority without giving further opportunity of

2 Automobile Products of India Limited being heard to the assessee causing loss to the assessee and there is violation of principle of natural justice.

During hearing, Ms. Vasanti patel, ld. counsel for the assessee, advanced arguments, which are identical to the ground raised by further inviting our attention to the affidavit of the assessee duly sworn by Shri Kumar Srinivasan, Director of the assessee company. The ld. counsel reiterated the factual matrix mentioned in the aforesaid order. The crux of the argument and the factual matrix mentioned in the affidavit is that Shri M.B. Shridharan is a senior chartered accountant, who was authorized to appear before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and he, being, based in Chennai could not appear before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on later dates causing inconvenience/injustice to the assessee, therefore, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed practically ex-parte order. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Asghar Zain, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by submitting that it was the duty of the assessee to arrange another counsel and further to remain vigilant.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above factual matrix and without going into much deliberation, we are of the view that even per mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, due taxes can only be levied/collected, therefore, on the principle of natural justice, we remand this 3 Automobile Products of India Limited appeal to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine the claim of the assessee and after providing due opportunity of being heard, with further liberty, to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claims, decide the appeal in accordance with law, afresh. Keeping in view, the past history of the assessee, it is directed that the assessee is to remain vigilant in future and to appear before the ld. First Appellate Authority within one month from the receipt of this order for early disposal of the appeal. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is at liberty to dispose of the appeal on merit either on appearance of the assessee are on a later mutually agreed date. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is only allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 09/12/2015

AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD,CHENNAI vs. ASST CIT 10(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