ARISTRO FINCORP PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(3),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's valid adjournment request. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s ex parte order for AY 2013-14, which had dismissed the appeal in limine despite the assessee's request for adjournment due to approaching tax return deadlines. The original assessment was made under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte dismissal of an appeal by the CIT(A) without considering an adjournment request violates principles of natural justice and warrants restoration for a fresh decision on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM]
ORDER
Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 11.11.2024 for AY 2013-14 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi dated 19.01.2022.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by the appellate authority is an ex parte order dismissing the appeal in limini despite the request from the assessee to adjourn the case. The Ld. Counsel submitted that it was stated in the adjournment letter that the case was fixed on 18.04.2024 and since the last date of filing the return of income for AY 2023-24 and TDS return quarter 2 for FY 2024-25 was approaching fast, therefore, the case may be adjourned and refixed in the month of November, 2024. However, the same was overlooked and assessment was framed ex parte. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that appeal may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) so the same could be represented and decided on merit.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, left the issue at the discretion of the Hon’ble Bench.
After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the adjournment request of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to restore the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice and fairplay and direct the appellate authority to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026