2020 (1) TMI 1413 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment order u/s.144 - Ex-parte assessment order - HELD THAT - We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte. Even on perusal of the assessment order, we find that the person, who has passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act being the Additional Commissioner, has also passed the impugned order being the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). As per the objection raised by the ld. AR assessee during the course of hearing and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we restore the entire matter to the file of CIT(A), other than the CIT (Appeal), who has passed the impugned order, and direct to pass a speaking and reasoned order considering the submissions of the assessee, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) positively for early disposal of the case. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against ex-parte order by CIT(A) without hearing, Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Jurisdiction of CIT(A) who passed assessment order

Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay: The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 108 days. The assessee's representative filed an application for condonation of delay, which was found to have sufficient reasons for condonation. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard on its merits.

2. Appeal against Ex-Parte Order: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of hearing. The history of the case revealed that the AO had passed the assessment order u/s.144 of the Act, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against this order. The Tribunal had set aside the assessment directing the AO to assess the income afresh after providing a hearing. The CIT(A) then passed the impugned order, which the assessee argued was not sustainable as the same person who passed the assessment order had also passed the impugned order. Both the assessee's representative and the Department's representative agreed that the appeal should be restored to a different CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

3. Jurisdiction of CIT(A): Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's objection regarding the same person passing both the assessment order and the impugned order. In light of this, the Tribunal directed that the entire matter be restored to the file of a different CIT(A) for a reasoned order after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also instructed to cooperate for the prompt resolution of the case.

4. Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, indicating that the matter was being remanded back to a different CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The order was pronounced in an open court on 28/01/2020.