NORTHSTAR BUSINESS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was handicapped from presenting their case due to not being aware of the hearing date. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee claimed they did not receive notice of the final hearing date after an initial adjournment, preventing them from appearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without ensuring the assessee was duly notified of the hearing date.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM]
ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata dated 13.03.2018 for AY 2012-13.
At the outset, it has been brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that this impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. According to him, the Ld. CIT(A) had issued three notices and the assessee had appeared at the first instance. However, thereafter the assessee did not receive any notice fixing the date of hearing as well as it was not intimated as to the date of hearing. Therefore, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the last date of hearing so, the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of dismissing the appeal of the assessee for no fault of the assessee should be reversed. Per contra, the Ld. DR stated that the assessee was given adequate notices and since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) should not be disturbed.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the records it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had fixed the hearing on four occasions. It is noted from the impugned order that on the first date of hearing i.e. on 18.11.2016 the Ld. CIT(A) acknowledges that the Ld. AR of the assessee had filed a letter for adjournment; and thereafter according to the assessee, it has not received any notice fixing the date of hearing on 13.03.2018, therefore, it could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). It has to be borne in mind that the assessee if Northstar Business Pvt. Ltd., AY: 2012-13 aggrieved by the order of the AO has a statutory right of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and if the Ld. CIT(A) does not pass reasoned order on the issues raised by the assessee on merits, the appeal itself will be rendered meaningless. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion having noted that the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) being not aware of the date of hearing, the assessee was handicapped from placing on record the material/written submission to substantiate its contention. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits after hearing the assessee. We also direct the assessee to be diligent and prompt before the Ld. CIT(A) during the hearing and if advised so, to file written submission and documents to substantiate its grounds of appeal. With the aforesaid observation we dispose of the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 5th January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 05.01.2022 JD(Sr.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Assessee – M/s. Northstar Business Pvt. Ltd., 23, Strand Road, 1st floor, Kolkata- 700001.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026