Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a private limited company, originally filed its income at Rs. 8,88,94,460, revised to Rs. 8,79,73,792. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed under section 143(3) with additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but failed to appear for the hearing and was denied an adjournment.
Held
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without examining the merits of the case, which amounted to a denial of natural justice. The rejection of the adjournment request on technical grounds was considered unjust.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard by rejecting the adjournment request and passing an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case.
Sections Cited
143(3), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SONJOY SARMA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Novelty Clothing Pvt. Ltd.…………………...………………..…..….……….Appellant 40/2692, ABCD Market Road, Ernakulam, Ernakulam College S.O, Ernakulam, Kerala – 682035. [PAN:AADCN5324N] vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi..….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Govind Sekhar, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing: June12, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: August 12, 2025 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cochin [hereinafter “CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading and distribution of textile products. The assessee originally filed its return of income on 30.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 8,88,94,460. The return was subsequently revised on 30.03.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 8,79,73,792. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. Assessment was completed under
Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing and did not furnish any documents. The adjournment petition filed by the assessee was rejected, and the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal.
The assessee has now challenged the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that it was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard and that rejection of the adjournment request on mere technical grounds was unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex parte without properly examining the merits of the assessee’s case. While the assessee was at fault in not appearing on the appointed date, we find that outright rejection of the adjournment request and dismissal of the appeal without consideration of facts amounts to denial of natural justice. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A) and file the necessary documents and submissions as and when required. In view of the above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to his file for de novo adjudication after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
12th August, 2025