SANJAY JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-43(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity before the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C(SMC
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-13, Kolkata dated 17-06-2019 for the assessment year 2011-12.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the impugned order is an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)and that only three notices were issued to the assessee fixing the date of hearing. The Ld. AR contended that the assessment order of the AO is passed u/s. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is noted that the AO has passed the assessment order without hearing the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has also passed the order ex parte, therefore, according to Ld. AR, both the lower authorities have passed the order ex parte, without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee which is violative of natural justice. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that assessee did not get proper opportunity before the lower authorities, therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of AO for de novo assessment and the assessee is directed to participate in the assessment proceedings diligently without fail.
Sanjay Jhunjhunwala, AY- 2011-12 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2019.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026