DAMANI INFRACON (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), KOL, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) should provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order after dealing with the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 7 days. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in passing such an order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The above captioned appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dt. 09/05/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2010-11
The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. Petition for condonation of delay is placed on record by assessee explaining the reasons. On perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing.
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dibyendu Jana
Without prejudice to the Grounds raised before this Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We have perused the impugned order and observed that during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), various notices of hearing were issued but there was no response from the assessee and thus the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal by confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer on account of non-appearance of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ld. D/R, though not leaving his grounds, raised no objection to the plea of the assessee.
In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for de-novo adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after dealing with the merits of the case.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 31st October, 2023 at Kolkata. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated 16/10/2023 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dibyendu Jana
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026