2014 (8) TMI 109 - AT - Income Tax

Ex-parte order passed - Principles of natural justice Opportunity of being heard Held that - CIT(A) is required to allow proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee - order passed by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as contained in section 250 of the Act thus, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Two appeals filed by individual and HUF against separate orders of CIT(A) - common issue, opportunity to represent the case, consideration of evidence by AO, ex-parte orders by CIT(A).

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed by two assessees, one individual and the other a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A). The appeals were heard together as they involved a common issue and were disposed of in a single consolidated order for convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals were similar, focusing on the CIT(A) not providing further opportunity to represent the case, failure to consider evidence, and making additions without proper consideration. The assessee requested the ITAT to direct the Assessing Officer to provide all evidence relied upon for making additions. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed one appeal ex-parte without deciding on the merits, contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

In the case of the other assessee, the appeal was also dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without affording proper opportunity to be heard. The ITAT, considering the facts of the case, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a fresh disposal of the appeal on merit, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. The ITAT instructed the assessee to cooperate to enable the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Consequently, both appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18th July 2014.