Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against separate ex-parte orders of the Addl./JCIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, alleging that they were not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee's AR requested a fresh opportunity to present their case, while the revenue's Sr. DR opposed restoring the matter.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation in the appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, it restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication, contingent on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- as costs for each year to Legal Aid Services and cooperating with the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside due to denial of sufficient opportunity of being heard, and under what conditions the appeals should be restored for readjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
आदेश / O R D E R These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders both dated 07.03.2025, passed by the addl./JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara, for the assessment years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019.
Shri Shyamlal Das Bandhopadhyay, AR, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was the submission of the ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld.CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to provide the 2 ITANo.925&926/KOL/2025 details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.CIT(A).
In reply, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
A perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) in both the years under consideration shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the appellate proceedings. However, ld. AR before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the ld.CIT(A) to file all the details as required. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in both the appeals to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta-700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively.