M/S. DHANLABH INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to hear the assessee and, if new documents were produced, to call for a remand report from the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte without considering the merits. The CIT(A) passed the order despite issuing multiple notices and granting adjournments, but the assessee did not appear on the final hearing date. The AO had also passed a reassessment order under Section 144 pursuant to an order under Section 263.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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]
This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata dated 09.08.2017 for AY 2009-10.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the outset itself, it is noted that the impugned order is an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)and that only four notices were issued to the assessee fixing the date of hearing. Though the ld. Ld. CIT(A) has noted that Shri Saikat Palit, the ld. AR appeared on 27.06.2017, however thereafter finding that none appeared before him on 08.08.2017 even after he has granted adjournments, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte dismissing the appeal without going into merits. We also note that AO also has passed the reassessment order u/s 144 of the Act pursuant to order u/s 263 of the Act. So we note that both the authorities have passed the order without hearing the assessee. Since the ld. Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. The assessee is directed to participate in the appellate proceedings diligently and if the assessee produces any new documents, then the Dhanlabh Investment Mnagement P. Ltd., AY 2009-10 ld. Ld. CIT(A) may call for the remand report from AO in accordance to law and decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 1st January, 2020
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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026