ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — July 2020

The third member held that the selection of the assessee's return for scrutiny was compliant with CBDT procedures. He also held that the income returned as agricultural income should be assessed as such, not as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions and the delay in receiving the adjournment application. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order, not being on merits, was unsustainable. The matter was set aside with a nominal cost imposed on the assessee, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found fault with both parties, noting the assessee's responsibility to prosecute the appeal and the Revenue's obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be non-compliant with Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that a proper opportunity of hearing is essential for judicial proceedings and the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable in law as the notice was not served. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.