Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal
order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 15, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and in that view of the matter the order of the CIT (A) deserves to be set aside.
2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non compliance to the Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brainspace Management And Skill Education Ltd notices ever though none of the notices allegedly issued by the CIT (A) were actually served on the appellant and in that view of the matter the appellate order be cancelled and/or set aside.
3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there being change in the Registered Office of the appellant and the same having been intimated to Registrar of Companies the CIT (A) was unjustified in not sending the notices to the new address of the appellant and in that view of the matter erred in passing the order ex parte.
4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in upholding the A.O’s order making addition u/s 68 of the Act.
5. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.”
3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has furnished copy of the master data of the company to submit that the address of the company was changed, therefore, the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing of the appeal sent by the CIT(A) at the old address of the company. That the non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A) was not intentional rather due to the reason as mentioned aforesaid.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, could not rebut the aforesaid contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee.
Considering the above submission of the ld. representatives of both the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be well-served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Brainspace Management And Skill Education Ltd afresh. Needless to say that CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.