SHRI BARIK BISWAS,BASIRHAT vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(9), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 451/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 June 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessment records on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the issue back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex-parte order without a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee claimed that notices were not served on time, and the CIT(A) refused to grant more time to present the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Sikha Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT
Hearing: 27/02/2020Pronounced: 17/06/2020

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-15, Kolkata, in appeal no. 263/CIT(A)-15/16-17/Cir-4991)/Kol, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 29/12/2016.

Shri Barik Biswas Assessment Year:2014-15 2. Although in this appeal, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, but at the time of hearing, the solitary grievance of the assessee has been confined to the ground no. 1 only which reads as follows:

1. That the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in passing ex-parte order dt. 31.01.2019 without giving proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. No notice of hearing was served on assessee on time, however the same was served after few days of hearing to the assessee and when assessee approached to ld. CIT(A) to give some time to present the case, but the ld. CIT(A) refused and pass the ex- parte order. Thus, the ex-parte order is a denial of Natural Justice.

3. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is ex parte order and assessee did not get opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A) therefore another opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. We note that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is ex parte order, and the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and assessment order to adjudicate the issue on merits. Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue fresh.

5.

Before parting, it is noted that the order is being pronounced after 90 days of hearing. However, taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be Page | 2

Shri Barik Biswas Assessment Year:2014-15 excluded. For coming to such a conclusion, we rely upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIJT vs JCB Limited in and ITA No. 6103/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 order dated 14.05.2020.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 17.06.2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →