2016 (9) TMI 1618 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order passed by CIT-A - assessee contended that the order of the CIT(A) suffers from a pertinent infirmity as it has been passed without affording the assessee full and proper opportunity of being heard - As per assessee CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order inspite of the fact that assessee did appear on various dates and indeed the matter was finally adjourned for 22/01/2010, whereas the CIT(A) has passed the order on an anterior date i.e. 19/01/2010 itself - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order inspite of the fact that assessee did appear on various dates and indeed the matter was finally adjourned for 22/01/2010, whereas the CIT(A) has passed the order on an anterior date i.e. 19/01/2010 itself. Considering the fact position and the circumstances explained before us, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that our decision to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) shall not be construed as any reflection on the merits of the various issues raised by the assessee, which shall be dealt with by the CIT(A) as per law. Aappeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2003-04; Appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal including lack of proper opportunity to be heard, passing of ex-parte order, non-consideration of submissions, disallowance of expenses, and interest expenditure issues.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-04 and challenges the order passed by CIT(A)-29 Mumbai dated 19/01/2010, which arose from the Assessing Officer's order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised various grounds of appeal, including contentions related to the CIT(A)'s alleged failure to provide a full and proper opportunity of being heard, passing an order without considering submissions, and confirming disallowances of expenses and interest expenditure.

During the hearing, the appellant's representative argued that the CIT(A)'s order suffered from a significant infirmity as it was passed without affording the appellant a full and proper opportunity to be heard. The representative highlighted that the order was passed on an earlier date than the scheduled hearing, leading to a lack of representation of the appellant's case. The appellant requested the matter to be remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the raised issues after providing a lawful opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

The Departmental Representative did not raise substantial objections to the appellant's plea regarding the lack of proper opportunity to be heard. Considering the circumstances and arguments presented, the ITAT deemed it appropriate to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, ensuring the appellant is granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The decision to remand the matter was clarified not to reflect on the merits of the issues raised by the appellant, leaving them to be addressed by the CIT(A) as per legal procedures.

Ultimately, the appeal of the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes, signifying a procedural victory for the appellant in obtaining a fair opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for a reevaluation of the disputed issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2016, marking the conclusion of the ITAT's decision in this matter.