What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal but, considering the ex-parte order by the CIT(A), restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all necessary documents.

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 1055 days, which was condoned. The case was adjourned multiple times due to the assessee's representative's illness and requests. On the final hearing date, no one appeared for the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-prosecution, or if an ex-parte order by the lower appellate authority warrants a remand for fresh adjudication.

Debashis Banerjee, North 24… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 20/11/2023Pronounced: 21/12/2023

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The above captioned appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 6, dt. 14/01/2020, (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. This appeal has a checkered past. Firstly the appeal was time barred by 1055 days and was fixed for hearing on 01/05/2023, on which date the Bench considered the condonation petition and was of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and accordingly condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. Shri D.K. Saha, C.A., had appeared on behalf of the assessee who prayed that as the ld. First Appellate Authority had passed an ex-parte order, the assessee may be granted the Assessment Year: 2016-17 Debashis Banerjee opportunity to produce all the necessary documents in support of its claim before the Tribunal. The case was treated as part-heard and was adjourned to 12th July, 2023 for further hearing.

2.1.

On 12/07/2023, staff of the ld. A/R appeared and placed an adjourned application stating therein that due to illness, the ld. A/R could not appear. The hearing was adjourned to 25/09/2023. On 25/09/2023, the case was again adjourned to 20/11/2023, at the request of the ld. A/R.

When the case was called up for hearing on 20/11/2023, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In view of this series of events, we are of the view that the ld. A/R does not seem interested to prosecute the appeal before the Tribunal. However, in view of the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, without dealing with the merits of the case, interests of justice would be met if the issues are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. The assessee shall produce all necessary documents/evidences in support of its claim.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 21st December, 2023 at Kolkata. (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 21/12/2023 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2016-17 Debashis Banerjee

आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Assessee

""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

DEBASHIS BANERJEE,NORTH 24 PARGANAA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments