What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order, which violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, and their request for adjournment was rejected. The CIT(A) had also passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Indar Chand Agarwal vs I.T.O., Ward-46(2) | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

order : November 27th, 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)-14, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 14.03.2019 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2012-13.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Petitions were filed for adjournment. As in my view this is not a fit case for grant of adjournment, I reject the same and proceed to dispose off this case ex-parte qua the assessee on merits.

I find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. There is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, I set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The ld. CIT(A) is directed to dispose off the appeal on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 27th November, 2019.

INDAR CHAND AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-46(2), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments