M/S. ACCURATE SHOPPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECHNICAL - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 151/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard and by failing to adjudicate the issue on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was heard ex parte as they did not appear. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessment records or discussed the assessee's case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed principles of natural justice and properly adjudicated the appeal on merits.

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, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA

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

For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Hearing: 31/10/2019Pronounced: 31/12/2019

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

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)-13, Kolkata in appeal no. 144/CIT(A)-13/Tech-2/Kol/2016-17, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 23/03/2015.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the M/s Accurate Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963.

3.

We heard the ld. D.R. for the revenue and perused the material available on record. We note that it is crystal clear that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the assessment records and as well as assessment order to adjudicate the issue. We also note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him, he only stated that “Assessing Officer has already discussed the issue in detail”, hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the submission filed by the A.R. of the assessee. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the effected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, 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, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. 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.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.12.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →