Income Tax

Very short period of appearance given to assessee violated principles of natural justice – ITAT

Very short period of appearance given to assessee violated principles of natural justice. ITAT set aside order passed by CIT (Exemptions) for decision afresh

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2126 (2017) (11) ITAT

The assessee trust was aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] rejecting the application of the assessee u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

The assessee approached the Tribunal (ITAT) by way of two appeals and contended that the CIT (E) had passed ex parte orders without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was stated that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing from the CIT(E).

The attention of the Tribunal was invited to the fact that even very short period of appearance was given to the assessee trust which itself showed that the impugned orders were passed in a hurried manner because of the stipulated time for passing of the orders by the CIT(E) was running out.

The Tribunal found force in the contentions of the assessee and observed that a very short notice of appearance had been given to the assessee which was evident from the perusal of the order itself.

It was noticed that the show cause letter dated 9.3.2017 (sent through post) was allegedly delivered on 15.3.2017, whereas the date of hearing was fixed on 16.3.2017. Further, another show cause notice was issued on 22.3.2017 asking the assessee to provide the necessary documents / clarification by 25.3.2017.

The assessee had claimed that it had not received any of the notices sent by the CIT(E). The ITAT opined that even assuming that the said notice were received by the assessee, it could be clearly gathered that very short time period was given to the assessee to respond to such notices.

The Tribunal opined that the principle of natural justice had not been followed by the CIT (E) while passing the ex-parte orders against the assessee. In view of this, the impugned orders of the CIT (E)  were set aside and the matter in both the appeals was restored to the file of the CIT (E) for decision afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in accordance with law.

Download Full Judgment

Share

Recent Posts

  • GST

GST Advisory & FAQs on Electronic Credit Reversal & Re-claimed Statement & RCM Liability

GSTN Advisory & FAQs related to Electronic Credit Reversal and Re-claimed Statement and RCM Liability/ITC Statement To ensure correct and…

4 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Negligence of tax payer would not make exempt income taxable – ITAT

It is well settled that if any receipt cannot be subjected to tax being exempt under law, negligence of any…

14 hours ago
  • GST

For a notice sent by GSTN Portal no inference may be drawn as to its actual service

Since UPGST Authorities unable to inform when notice sent by GSTN Portal may have been retrieved or downloaded, no inference…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Cash deposit of Rs. 250000 cr (credit) misread as crores by AO – Plea declined

High Court declines plea of assessee that Income Tax Department wrongly read amount of cash deposit of Rs. 250000 Cr…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Discontinuance of business of firm will not vest ownership of firm’s property with partners

Discontinuance of business of partnership firm will not result in vesting ownership of firm's property with individual partners for capital…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B within 120 days is directory not mandatory

Stipulation of 120 days for release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B is directory not mandatory – Delhi High Court In…

2 days ago