PARIJAT COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HAZARIBAGH vs. ITO, WARD 13(3), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 549/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 September 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC order was passed ex parte as the assessee failed to appear. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the case on merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 25.01.2025. The assessee's counsel submitted that ex parte proceedings were held before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the NFAC, and the merits of the case were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits when ex parte proceedings were held before lower authorities due to the assessee's failure to appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

order

: September 03, 2025 ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].

2.

The ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that there were ex parte proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). The ld. counsel submitted that both the authorities below have passed the respective orders without taking into consideration of the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so as the same could be heard on merits and decided accordingly.

3.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has left the matter to the wisdom of the Bench.

Parijat Commodities Pvt. Ltd 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte and the assessee failed to make appearance before both the authorities below. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, we restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the case on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

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

Kolkata, the 3rd September, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →