MUBARAK STORE,PORT BLAIR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3(2), PORT BLAIR, PORT BLAIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1502/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 March 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to appear diligently.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order from the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, arguing that no adequate opportunity of being heard was provided. The appeal was initially time-barred by 220 days, but the delay was condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, is sustainable in law, and if the matter should be remanded for de novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Rama Choudhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.03.2025Pronounced: 03.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR Respondent by : Ms. Rama Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2025 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/250/2023-24/1056887875(1) dated 09.10.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18.

2.

Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Rama Choudhary, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 220 days. A separate application for condonation of delay dated 03.07.2024 has been placed in file. Considering the averments made in the application, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

4.

The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and is a non speaking order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.

5.

Since the assessee not being afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) could not present himself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on the date of hearing diligently and without any fail.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →