UTKARSH VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.WARD-7(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 101/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 February 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not on merits and lacked proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed 31 days late. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without considering the assessment records. The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when it was ex-parte, non-speaking, and failed to consider assessment records. The need for a de novo adjudication by the first appellate authority.

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 A.T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT Sr. D.R
Hearing: 16/12/2019Pronounced: 26/02/2020

आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.A.L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Kolkata in appeal no. 25629/CIT(A)-1/Ward-1(2)/2015-16, 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 26/03/2015.

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 31 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay. We have examined the petition for condonation of delay and having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

Utkarsh Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 4. We have heard the ld. D.R. for the revenue and perused the material available on record. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee however Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. We have gone through the impugned order of ld CIT(A) and noticed that ld. CIT(A) has not considered the assessment records and as well as assessment order to adjudicate the issue involved in assessee’s appeal. We also note that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merits.We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

We are of the view that one more opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority should be granted to the assessee.Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 26.02.2020

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →