9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 90 - AT - Income TaxOrder passed ex-parte by CIT-A - assessee had arranged bogus long term capital gain - appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said appeal - HELD THAT - It is observed that even though the notices of the hearings fixed before the Ld. CIT(A) were stated to be issued to the assessee, there is nothing in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to show that any of the said notices was ever served on the assessee. In our opinion, the assessee, therefore, cannot be said to have been given proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A) before disposing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. Even the ld. DR has not disputed this position which is clearly evident from the record. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues: Stay of outstanding demand for A.Y. 2011-12, Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A), Proper opportunity of being heard before Ld. CIT(A).
Stay of Outstanding Demand: The assessee sought a stay of the outstanding demand of ?1,19,810 for A.Y. 2011-12, which was disposed of along with the corresponding appeal. The Assessing Officer treated long term capital gain as bogus and added it to the total income of the assessee, resulting in a total income determination of ?6,57,720. The appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed it ex-parte due to lack of compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order, remitting the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing the assessee with a proper hearing. Appeal Against Ld. CIT(A) Order: The appeal before the Tribunal was against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the notices of hearings fixed before the Ld. CIT(A) were stated to be issued to the assessee, but there was no evidence that any of the notices were served on the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, and the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing the necessary hearing to the assessee. Proper Opportunity of Being Heard: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee was entitled to a proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard before the Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte. It was noted that the lack of service of notices on the assessee meant that the assessee could not be said to have been given a fair hearing. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the appeal after ensuring the assessee's right to be heard. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application as it became infructuous after the disposal of the corresponding appeal. The stay application was dismissed, while the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard before making any determinations or decisions in tax matters.
|
