HARSHAD AJMERA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to a dispute over the service of notice of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2008-09, and assessment was completed. A fresh assessment order was later passed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 263. The first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid given the dispute regarding the service of notice, and if principles of natural justice were violated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]
Date of concluding the hearing : December 02nd, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : December 11th, 2019 ORDER
Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2008-09.
The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 11.09.20108 declaring net taxable income of ₹48,93,195/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2010. Thereafter a fresh assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 263 of the Act on 28.03.2014. On appeal the ld. first appellate authority passed an ex-parte order. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. After hearing rival contentions, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law as there is violation of principles of natural justice. The ld. CIT(A) states that notice was served to the assessee but no one appeared. The assessee pleads that notice of hearing has not been served. In these circumstances we set aside the matter to the file of the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
Assessment Year: 2008-09 Harshad Ajmera. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 11th December, 2019.
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 →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026