SANDEEP,MATERSHREE NIWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 296/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 September 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was no proof of service of notices on the assessee and that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee claims they did not receive notice of the hearing and their adjournment application was rejected without sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Pune, dated 14.03.2024 pertaining to 2016-17 assessment year.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has A.Y. 2016-17 2 submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the adjournment application of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case.

He has further submitted that no notice of date of hearing was served upon the assessee by the ld.CIT(A); that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

4.

The ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A). But there is nothing on record to prove that the notices were served upon the assessee to present his case.

Even the impugned order does not make mention of any such service on the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was not afforded proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.Y. 2016-17 3 assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(Appeals).

6.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 03.09.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →