BIMLA DEVI SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1973/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 December 2021AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings due to lack of awareness of the hearing date, which was not the assessee's fault. Therefore, the assessee should have been heard before the CIT(A) passed an order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte because the assessee was unaware of the hearing notice. The assessee claimed the notice was not served, leading to a violation of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee violates principles of natural justice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ) &Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Hearing: 30.11.2021Pronounced: 15.12.2021

ORDER

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-21, Kolkata dated 10.07.2019 for AY 2012-13.

2. At the outset, the Ld. AR Shri Subash Agarwal drew our attention to the fact that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is an ex parte order which fact we find it to be correct. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) because the assessee was unaware of the notice of the hearing because it was not served upon the assessee and that the assessee had filed an affidavit swearing this fact. Therefore, according to him, there is a violation of natural justice since the assessee did not get opportunity to appear and plead before the Ld. CIT(A) during the hearing. So, he urged before the bench to restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR opposes the prayer of the assessee.

3.

We have heard the submissions of both the sides and note that the assessee’s main grievance is that assessee was unaware of the notice of hearing so, he could not participate in the appellate proceedings which prompted the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the action of AO. The 1

Bimla Devi Sureka, AY 2012-13 assessee’s prayer is that the appeal may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). We note that since the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings because she was un- aware of the date of hearing, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal citing non- participation of assessee. We note that assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings for no fault of assessee, so we are of the opinion that the assessee should have been heard before the Ld. CIT(A) passes the order in the appeal preferred by the assessee. So we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. And the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings as undertaken before us. And the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order.

4.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 15 December, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. M. Jagtap) (Aby. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member Dated: 15.12.2021 JD(Sr.P.S.)

Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant- Bimla Devi Sureka, 28/1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017.

2.

Respondent – DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →