UNITECH WATER TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.10(2), KOLAKTA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without addressing the issue of proper notice. The AO also noted a lack of explanation from the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee contended that notices from the CIT(A) were not properly served and the AO did not provide adequate opportunity during reassessment. The assessee's factory was also closed due to economic reasons.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was afforded natural justice and adequate opportunity by the lower authorities, and if not, whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey
Appearances by: Sh. Soumitra Choudhury & Sh. Jaydeep Chakraborty, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : September 4th, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : September 16th, 2020 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [hereinafter ld. ‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 16.02.2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AYs 2010-11 & 2012-13.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notice of hearing from the ld. CIT(A) was not served on the assessee, as the interest was wrongly stated. He further submitted that the AO also did not give adequate opportunity to the assessee while passing the order u/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. He pointed out that, the order u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 25.03.2015 and the AO completed the re-assessment on 03.07.2015 without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee’s factory was closed due to economic reasons and under these circumstances the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
2 & 455/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Unitech Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the violation of the principles of natural justice had occurred at the stage of the ld. CIT(A). On a query from the Bench, the ld. DR submitted that both the appeal may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law as adequate opportunity was not granted to the assessee.
In view of the above discussion and on perusal of the orders of the authorities below we find that the principles of natural justice was violated. The ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without disposing off this issue on merits. The AO has also recorded that no explanation was filed by the assessee. Under these circumstances we restore both these appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 16th September, 2020. Sd/- Sd/- [Aby T. Varkey] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 16.09.2020 Bidhan Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Unitech Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 32/1, Gariahat Road (South), Kailash Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700 031.
2. DCIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata.
3. CIT(A)-4, Kolkata. (sent through mail) 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. (sent through mail)
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026