Refusal to grant adjournment sought by person not authorized by assessee. ITAT set aside ex parte order

Refusal to grant adjournment sought by person not authorized by assessee and passing of ex parte order remanded by ITAT holding that defect could have been rectified

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2401 (2018) 07 ITAT

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT-Appeals in passing ex parte order against the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of assessment on the disallowance of claim u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals).

On the first hearing fixed, no one appeared on behalf of assessee before the CIT (Appeals), however an undated letter was received seeking adjournment of the hearing. The CIT(A) noticed that the person who sought the adjournment was not authorized to represent by the assessee in the proceedings before him. He therefore proceeded to decide the appeal of assessee on merits as per law ex parte.

The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) by the order passed ex parte.

The assessee preferred the instant appeal before the Tribunaland contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in denying the opportunity of being heard by refusing the adjournment sought for by a letter and without giving any further opportunities as prayed for.

It was submitted that the passing of impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice especially in view of the fact that the posting before the CIT(A) was the very first hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If the CIT(Appeals) found that a request for adjournment had been made by a person who was not duly authorized by the assessee to appear before him, the CIT(A) ought to have given one more opportunity to the assessee and brought it to the notice of the assessee, the fact that unauthorized person had appeared before him.

The Tribunal opined that the assessee would have rectified whatever be the defect on his part. Without doing so, the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deciding the appeal ex parte, especially when hearing before the CIT(Appeals) was the first hearing in the appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and remanded the issues for fresh consideration by the CIT(Appeals), after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees

ITAT allowed increased exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees in view of CBDT retrospective notification. In…

20 hours ago
  • Income Tax

PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO

PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases irrespective of the fact that the relevant assessment was completed physical…

1 day ago
  • Insurance

Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence

Appellate court interfering with Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal findings on assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity must undertake…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken

When period of delay is not very huge and involve huge monetary liability on the assessee, a lenient approach should…

2 days ago
  • SEBI

EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC

Ratification by EoGM of the company can not give legality of the diversion of the fund raised by preferential issue.…

3 days ago
  • Excise/Custom

Return of export cargo from Hormuz Strait where vessel do not lands at original port

CBIC prescribes procedures for return of export cargo from international waters due to closure of the Strait of Hormuz where…

3 days ago