M/S. KRISHNA CORPORATION,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 736/SRT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 January 2022AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee contended that they did not receive proper notice and opportunity to represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A), leading to an ex parte order. The assessee argued that a final show cause notice was never served.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

Hearing: 12/01/2022Pronounced: 12/01/2022

O R D E R

PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’], Surat in Appeal No.CIT(A), Surat-3/10800 /2016-17dated 28.09.2018, which in turn arises out of an assessmentorder passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 19.12.2016.

2.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assesseeassailed the impugned order by contending that assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Learned Counsel submits that during the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) has issued notices for hearing. The first notice of hearing was not served on the assessee. However, second notice of hearing was served on the assessee and in response to that notice, assessee sought adjournment. The assessee has again took adjournment against the notice dated 6.03.2018. However, Ld.CIT(A) issued final show cause notice which was never served on assessee. Had the final show cause notice been served on the assessee, the assessee would have attended the hearing during the appellate

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →