What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked merit-based discussion. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to present submissions and documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order in violation of natural justice principles, and whether the additions made were justified without proper consideration of the assessee's case.

Padrone Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs A.C.I.T., Circle-12(1) | ITAT Kolkata 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA

Before: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Hearing: 28.02.2023Pronounced: 13.03.2023

ORDER

Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“i. For that ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order, ex-parte in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as such the same is not sustainable in law. ii. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,16,50,579/- made by the AO treating it as undisclosed income which was otherwise the opening balance of fixed assets. iii. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,32,529/- being the disallowance of depreciation on land and building. iv. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 892 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee. We after perusing the petition for condonation are 2 AY: 2016-17 Padrone Marketing Pvt. Ltd. convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and hence delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get any opportunity to file relevant documents and submissions before ld. CIT(A), one more opportunity should be given and the issues raised in the instant appeal may be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A). Ld. D/R was fair enough not to oppose such prayer made by the ld. AR of the assessee.

We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that since the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte and no discussion has been made on the merits of the case, we, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order and remit it back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues raised before us by way of a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to remain vigilant in receiving the notices of hearing of the ld. CIT(A) and should not request for any further adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and should file all necessary documents so as to facilitate ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

PADRONE MARKETING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments