2015 (10) TMI 2822 - AT - Income Tax

Ex-parte orders of CIT - application of adjournment sent to CIT (A) by Speed post requesting for adjournment because the counsel of the assessee company CA Shri Shailesh Kumar Gupta had undergone left eye surgery for cataract along with Hospital Discharge Summary - HELD THAT - Considering this fact that the counsel of the assessee had undergone left eye surgery for cataract on 28.01.2014 and last two dates of hearing before CIT (A) were 10.02.2014 and 18.02.2014 we feel that in the interest of justice the assessee deserves one more opportunity. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT (A) in both years and restore the entire matter back to his file for fresh decision in both years after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in both years. In view of our decision we do not make any comment on merit of the issues raised by the assessee in these appeals.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against ex parte orders of Learned CIT (A) for A.Y. 2007-08 & 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeals were directed against ex parte orders of Learned CIT (A) for two separate years. The learned AR of the assessee contended that the orders were ex parte and requested restoration to CIT (A) for fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The revenue's DR argued that adequate opportunities were given but no compliance was made by the assessee. The AR of the assessee presented an application for adjournment due to the counsel's eye surgery, which was considered. The Tribunal acknowledged the counsel's surgery and the proximity of the surgery to the last hearing dates, concluding that the assessee deserved another opportunity in the interest of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (A) orders for both years, restoring the matters for fresh decisions after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard without commenting on the merits of the issues raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal's decision to grant the assessee another opportunity was based on the circumstances surrounding the counsel's surgery and the need for fairness in the proceedings. By allowing the appeals for statistical purposes, the Tribunal ensured that the assessee would have a chance to present their case effectively and address any issues that were not previously considered due to the ex parte nature of the earlier orders. The Tribunal's focus on procedural fairness and the right to be heard underscored the importance of due process in tax matters, emphasizing the need for a balanced and equitable approach to resolving disputes between taxpayers and revenue authorities.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the ex parte orders and provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in tax proceedings. By prioritizing justice and fairness, the Tribunal upheld the principles of natural justice and ensured that the assessee's interests were safeguarded in the adjudication process.