What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing a proper opportunity for hearing. The assessee contended that non-appearance was due to unavoidable circumstances and sought another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Shri Sailesh Karmakar, Keonjhar vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, AR

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Hearing: 03/04Pronounced: 03/04

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.92/CTK/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14

Shri Sailesh Karmakar, Prop. Vs. ITO, Keonjhar, Ward, Traders India, Main Road, Keonjhar Barbil, Keonjhar. PAN/GIR No.AMVPK 5471 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Date of Hearing : 03/04/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03/04/ 2019 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Cuttack dated

25.1.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14.

The short issue involved in this appeal is that the

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Cuttack was not justified

in in dismissing the appeal of the assessee exparte without

providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and

consequently confirming the addition of Rs.6,72,000/-.

P a g e 1 | 3

At the outset, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the

appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld CIT(A) as the

assessee failed to put in appearance on the dates fixed for hearing

by issuing notices dated 27.9.2018, 26.10.2018, 27.11.2018 &

10.1.2018. He submitted that the intention of the assessee was

not malafide and non-appearance was due to unavoidable

circumstances of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed that in the

interest of justice one more opportunity should be granted to the

assessee to present its case before the ld CIT(A).

On the other hand, ld D.R. did not have any objection to

restoring the appeal of the assessee back to the file of the ld

CIT(A).

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the

materials available on record, I find that ld CIT(A) has dismissed

the appeal of the assessee exparte and confirmed the addition

made by the AO without assigning any reason. Thus, the order of

ld CIT(A) is a non-speaking order and, therefore, as prayed by ld

counsel for the assessee, I consider it proper, in the interest of

justice, that the matter be restored to the file of ld CIT(A) to

decide the appeal after affording adequate opportunity to the

assessee. I also observe that no harm will be caused to the

revenue, if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee. I, P a g e 2 | 3

therefore, set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and remand the matter

back to his file to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh

after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to

both the parties.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 03/04/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 03/04/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Shri Sailesh Karmakar, Prop. Traders India, Main Road, Barbil, Keonjhar

The Respondent. ITO, Keonjhar, Ward, Keonjhar 3. The CIT(A), Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

SHRI SAILESH KARMAKAR,KEONJHAR vs. ITO, KEONJHAR WARD, KEONJHAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments