What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done because the appeal was not disposed of on merits and there was a violation of natural justice.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without disposal on merits. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and no adjournment was sought. The ITAT noted a violation of natural justice at the assessment stage.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution is permissible in law and if principles of natural justice were violated.

Parshuram Investment Limited vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Virtual Court) (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Parshuram Investment Ltd.............................................................................................................Appellant [PAN : AABCP 7053 Q] Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.………………..….....................................................................……......Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Supriyo Pal, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : June 15th, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : July 8th, 2020 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata dated 18.03.2019 (‘CIT(A)’ for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. There is no application for adjournment either. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. He has not disposed off the appeal on merits. Such dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law.

The ld. DR submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) as there was violation of principles of natural justice at the stage of the assessment itself.

Under these circumstances we set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Parshuram Investment Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 8th July, 2020. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 08.07.2020 Bidhan Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Parshuram Investment Ltd. CK-3&4, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091.

2. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata.

3. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata. (sent through mail) 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. (sent through mail)

PARSHURAM INVESTMENT LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments