2014 (7) TMI 1181 - AT - Income Tax

Non valid of service of notice - Best Judgment assessment - Held that - The order of the ld. CIT(A) he has recorded about issuance of notice, but there is no evidence with regard to valid service of notice of hearing upon the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has heard the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and dismissed the same. Since the appeal has been disposed of without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee, we are of the considered view that an opportunity should be afforded to the assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend all sort of co-operation to the ld. CIT(A) and to put his appearance as and when desired by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ex-parte order by CIT(A) upholding assessment order and additions
2. Valid service of notice of appellate hearing
3. Merits of assessment order and additions
4. Confirmation of additions/disallowances
5. Ignoring documentary evidence submitted before the A.O.
6. Denial of justice and fair play in adjudicating grounds of appeal
7. Ignoring precedents in the matter of additions/disallowances
8. Legality and excessiveness of assessment/appellate order

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) upholding the assessment order and additions. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in passing the order without valid service of notice of appellate hearing, leading to a denial of justice. The Tribunal found that the appeal was disposed of without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a re-adjudication of the appeal on merit after providing the appellant with a fair hearing.

2. The issue of valid service of notice of appellate hearing was raised by the appellant, highlighting the failure of the CIT(A) to ensure proper service. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence regarding the valid service of notice upon the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, emphasizing the importance of affording the appellant an opportunity to present their case.

3. The appellant contended that the assessment order and additions/disallowances were one-sided and lacked consideration of the merits of the case. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the grounds raised by the appellant, leading to a lack of fair adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the appeal on merit, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the case.

4. The appellant raised objections to the confirmation of various additions and disallowances made by the authorities. The Tribunal noted the appellant's argument that the additions/disallowances were contrary to law and based on conjectural grounds. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-assess these additions/disallowances in light of the appellant's submissions and documentary evidence.

5. The appellant argued that the authorities had ignored the documentary evidence submitted before the Assessing Officer, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submission and directed the CIT(A) to consider all relevant evidence during the re-adjudication process to ensure a fair and just outcome.

6. The appellant raised concerns about the denial of justice and fair play in adjudicating the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention that the CIT(A) had failed to address all grounds of appeal in a comprehensive manner. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to thoroughly examine each ground of appeal during the re-adjudication process to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

7. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) had ignored relevant precedents in similar matters of additions/disallowances. The Tribunal noted the appellant's concern and directed the CIT(A) to consider relevant legal decisions while re-evaluating the additions/disallowances to ensure consistency and fairness in the decision-making process.

8. Lastly, the appellant challenged the legality and excessiveness of the assessment and appellate orders. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's concerns and directed the CIT(A) to review the orders in light of the appellant's submissions and to provide a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of a just and lawful conclusion in the matter.