PURANMAL AGARWAL,JHALDA vs. WARD 3(2) PURULIA, PURULIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3015/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication would serve the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for failure to respond to notices. The issue pertained to cash deposits of Rs. 66,00,000/- during the demonetization period.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper hearing is sustainable. Restoration of appeal 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, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR
Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 06.03.2026

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.11.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Appellate Order has been passed by the CIT(A) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee when the assessee failed to respond on the various dates allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue was in respect of cash deposited of Rs.66,00,000/- during the demonetization period in

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the Appellant Order ex-parte when the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the End of justice will be well-served, if the appeal is restored to the file of CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 06.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →