ARCHANA CHANDA,COOCH BEHAR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, COOCH BEHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 943/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 June 2026AY 2020-20213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without providing an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to decide all grounds of appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and without deciding all grounds on merits is sustainable. The violation of principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.943/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Archana Chanda Vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Kolkata C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [PAN: AERPC5661A] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 16.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 21.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the assessment year 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed on 22.02.2025 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 22.02.2025,

ITA No.943/KOL/2026 Archana Chanda; A.Y: 2020-21 Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21.01.2026, dismissed the first Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.01.2026, Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.

4.

The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of Lower authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) , the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

ITA No.943/KOL/2026 Archana Chanda; A.Y: 2020-21 6. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.06.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →