2019 (3) TMI 9 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order of CIT(A) dismissing the appeal ex-parte - entitlement to be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard - No evidence to serve the notices or were received back unserved - HELD THAT - CIT (A) goes to prove that notices for appearance of the assessee were issued on 05.072017, 28.08.2017 and 17.10.2017 in all the three appeals but it is nowhere recorded in the order that if the notices were served upon the assessee or the notices were received back unserved. CIT (A) has proceeded to decide the appeals without getting the notices served on the assessee which amounts to denial of adequate opportunity of being heard. So, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, assessee is entitled to be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard, hence impugned orders passed by the CIT (A) are set aside and remanded back to the CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being hard to the assessee.- Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Adequate opportunity of being heard not provided by the Ld. CIT (A)
- Dismissal of appeals by Ld. CIT (A) without considering merits
- Perversity of orders passed by Ld. CIT (A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Addition of certain amounts by the Assessing Officer (AO) under different sections of the Income Tax Act
- Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by the AO

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals seeking to set aside impugned orders passed by Ld. CIT (A) for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The grounds included challenges to the legality and factual basis of the orders, emphasizing inadequate opportunity of being heard and non-prosecution of the appeals. Specific points were raised regarding the dismissal of appeals by Ld. CIT (A) and the failure to follow the provisions of the law, citing relevant judgments to support the arguments.

2. The AO had made additions under various sections of the Income Tax Act, such as section 69C for a specific amount, section 250(6) for not providing a written order with reasons, and section 271(1)(c) for penalty proceedings. The appellant contested these additions, highlighting errors made by the AO in disallowing expenses, making additions for unexplained expenditures, and imposing penalties without proper notice or opportunity for being heard.

3. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the notices for the appearance of the assessee were issued but there was no record of whether they were served or received back unserved. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT (A) had proceeded to decide the appeals without ensuring the notices were served, leading to a denial of adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to Ld. CIT (A) for a fresh decision after providing the necessary opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

4. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate opportunity for the parties involved to be heard. The decision was made to ensure fairness and adherence to procedural requirements. The order was pronounced in open court on February 25, 2019, highlighting the resolution of the issues raised by the appellant regarding the conduct of the proceedings and the decisions made by the tax authorities.