JAHANGIR BIRI FACTORY PVT. LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-42, MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1076/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper hearing and did not adjudicate the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an order of the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex parte. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on merits, violating natural justice principles.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order violated principles of natural justice by not deciding on merits. Whether the appeal should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

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: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 17/12/2019Pronounced: 31/12/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-12, Kolkata in appeal no. 100236/CIT(A)-12/Kol/DCIT, Cir- 42/Msd./2016-17, which in turn arise 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 23/03/2016.

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

Jahangir Biri Factory Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2013-14 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 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 have heard the ld. D.R. for the revenue and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit and did not consider the assessment record hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. 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 plead 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 →