2014 (5) TMI 965 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed, order set aside for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter for re-adjudication. The appellant was ... Ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act – Opportunity of being heard – Held that:- The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee did not put in an appearance on the six dates of hearing – assessee contended that due to the assessee becoming a sick company and referred to the BIFR and also there being change of address, notice of hearing could not be served on the assessee - the assessee could not comply with the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A) – the matter is required to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for freesh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) and confirmation of ex-parte assessment order.2. Non-attendance at hearings and grounds for dismissal.3. Alleged lack of attendance during appellate proceedings.4. Dismissal without considering written submissions.5. Lack of material for relief to the appellant.6. Contravention of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad, which dismissed the appellant's appeal and confirmed the ex-parte assessment order under section 144 passed by the AO, along with the additions/disallowances made therein. The appellant challenged this decision on various grounds.2. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal citing the appellant's non-attendance at six hearings fixed by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that they did not receive the notices for these hearings due to the factory premises being closed. The appellant requested another opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the change in the incumbent in the office of the CIT(A) who did not consider the submissions filed before.3. The appellant disputed the CIT(A)'s observation that they rarely attended the appellate proceedings. They provided evidence of attending hearings, filing written submissions, and discussing the case with the CIT(A) on specific dates. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the written submissions filed by the appellant.4. The CIT(A) was accused of dismissing the appeal without taking into account the written submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in stating that there was no material on record suggesting any relief to the appellant, contrary to the facts and evidence presented.5. The appellant further argued that the CIT(A) contravened the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal without providing the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons for the decisions. The appellant sought the order to be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication ground-wise.6. Upon considering the submissions, orders of lower authorities, and materials on record, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and directing the appellant to appear before the CIT(A) within a specified time frame.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and the opportunity for both parties to present their case effectively before the CIT(A).