Appeal disposed of in hurried manner without reasonable opportunity of being heard set aside

Appeal disposed of in a hurried manner without affording reasonable opportunity or being heard set aside by ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3593 (2022) (05) ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of interest on unsecured loan. 

The assessee was a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny and while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer added back an interest paid on unsecured loan.

The reason being, the unsecured loan on which the assessee was paying interest was a housing loan, which was not repaid by the assessee. Whereas, every year the assessee was crediting interest to the lender.  

The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex-parte alleging that the assessee did not respond to the notice of hearing.

The Tribunal noticed that two hearing notices were issued to the assessee. However, there was no further discussion by CIT(A) as to whether such notices were actually served upon the assessee.

The Tribunal further observed that the hearing notices were not only issued in close proximity, but the dates of hearing were given within a very short period from the date of issuance of hearing notices.

The Tribunal opined that facts indicated that assessee’s appeal was disposed of in a hurried manner without affording reasonable opportunity or being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to him for fresh adjudication after due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Allegations of delay in TDS deposit & person responsible must be tested at trial
• Generation & allotment of UIN in Form No. 121 declaration for payment without TDS
• Penalty u/s 270A deleted as AO failed to mention the relevant clause the case fall
• Income by deploying ex-servicemen as security guards not business activity
• Draft assessment order cannot give rise to any enforceable demand