2015 (7) TMI 1323 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of natural justice - CIT(A) has not given opportunity of hearing to the assessee - assessee could not remain present before the ld. CIT(A) and appeal was decided ex-parte - HELD THAT - We find that the CIT(A) in his order has written that none appeared on behalf of the Department and as per the decision of in the case of CIT vs. Amritlal Bhogilal Co. 1958 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT wherein it is held that the appellate authority exercises the power if found to hear ITO or his Representative. In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. We find that in this case the AO was not heard. Therefore we restore this issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) and CIT(A) is directed to give notice of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter afresh

Summary

Issues: Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment year 2009-10

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. The assessee, a Private Limited Company, filed the return of income under section 153A, and the assessment was completed under sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income at Rs. 1.50 crores on a protective basis.
3. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made during the assessment.
4. The Authorized Representative pointed out that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal, resulting in an ex-parte decision.
5. The Tribunal referred to judicial pronouncements emphasizing that the appellate authority must hear the parties involved for effective pursuit of the appeal. Citing relevant cases, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of both parties being given a fair hearing.
6. Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal noted that failure to represent or communicate reasons for absence can lead to adverse consequences, as seen in the case where the appeal was treated as unadmitted due to the revenue's absence without explanation.
7. Since the AO was not heard in this case, the Tribunal directed the issue to be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee.
8. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, while the cross objection was dismissed as it had become infructuous by the Tribunal's decision to send the issue back for a fresh hearing.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the appeal against the CIT(A) order for the assessment year 2009-10, highlighting the procedural irregularities and the Tribunal's decision to ensure a fair hearing process.