SANEEY KUMAR JAIN,BHIND, UP vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 24/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee another opportunity. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association, Gwalior, within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders because the assessee's counsel failed to inform the assessee about the hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities against the assessee should be set aside and the case remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, given the counsel's failure to notify the assessee of hearing dates.

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 GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Mahendra Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070784584(1) dated 30.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18.

2.

Shri Mahendra Agarwal, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) show that they are ex parte, as the assessee did not represent before them because the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not intimate the Shri Saneey Kumar Jain AY: 2017-18 assessee about the dates of hearing. However, in the interest of natural justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- is to be paid to the Income Tax Bar Association, Gawalior within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 50,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →