YUSUF SEIKH,BARDHAMAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , BARDHAMAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1052/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 July 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. The issues were restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, with the assessee expected to cooperate in the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2015-16, contending that an adjournment request was made during appellate proceedings, but no sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided. The assessee failed to submit evidence to substantiate its claim before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 21/07/2025Pronounced: 21/07/2025

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

On perusal of the grounds of appeal, the assessee has submitted that an adjournment was asked during the course of appellate proceedings, however, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned ex-parte without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

Ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

5.

I have considered the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR and the facts and circumstances of the case. A perusal of the impugned order, being more specifically in para 6.2 at page 3 shows that the assessee has failed to 2 submit the evidence to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. CIT(A) by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/07/2025. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 21/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यापपत प्रयत //// (

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →