M/S. ANOOP TEA CO. PVT. LTD.,SILIGURI vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4(3),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 102/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 November 2024AY 2013-20142 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order. Considering the submissions made by the assessee, supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-compliance, and in light of a coordinate bench's decision in identical facts for earlier assessment years where the matter was remanded, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the Ld. CIT(A) would provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anoop Tea Co. Private Limited, has filed an appeal against the ex parte order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee contended that the ex parte order was due to non-compliance with notices from the CIT(A). The reasons provided were that the dealing staff responsible for the tax matter was unwell and had left the company's services. The new incumbent joined in April 2024, and consequently, e-mailed notices from the CIT(A) were not accessed, leading to a lack of knowledge about the hearing date and inability to comply. The assessee also cited a coordinate bench order where similar facts for earlier assessment years led to a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside on the grounds of non-compliance due to unavoidable circumstances and lack of proper opportunity of hearing? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the ex parte order was passed due to the unavailability of the concerned staff and the subsequent inability to access e-mailed notices. They relied on an affidavit explaining these circumstances and a coordinate bench order for identical facts in earlier assessment years, where the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee requested that the present appeal also be remanded. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘B’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member I.T.(SS)A. No.102/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anoop Tea Co. Private Limited .………. Appellant C/o, M/s. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. 7, C. R. Avenue, 3rd floor, Kolkata-700072. (PAN: AACCA1872F) vs. DCIT, Central circle-4(3), Kolkata ………. Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. Jhajharia, AR appeared on behalf of the Appellant Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the Respondent Date of concluding the hearing :October 24, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order :November 18, 2024 आदेश / ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member : The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.06.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) which is an ex parte order. A separate affidavit has been filed explaining the reasons for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein, it has been mentioned that the concerned dealing staff who was looking after the said taxation matter of the company was not keeping well and had left the services. The new incumbent joined in April, 2024 and, therefore, the notices

I.T(SS).A. No.102/Kol/2024 M/s. Anoop Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2013-14 sent through e-mail by the Ld. CIT(A) could not be accessed and were not in the knowledge of the company, therefore, the compliance could not be made on the date of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) resulting into the ex parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal dated 23.09.2024 to submit that in the identical facts and circumstances for earlier assessment years, the matter has been remanded by the Tribunal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the matter is relating to the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act and that since the matter relating to identical issue has already been restored to the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the matter in this appeal be also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above submission, impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) will give proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to represent its case.

3.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2024. Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member Dated: 18.11.2024. JD Sr. P.S Copy of the order forwarded to: Appellant – M/s. Anoop Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1. 2. Respondent – DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata 3. CIT(A), Kolkata-27. 4. ACIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata. 5. CIT, (DR), True copy BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →