M/S. MARSONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1108/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 November 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, thus violating the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against orders passed by the CIT(A) which arose from assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 263/143(3). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without adjudicating on merits, violating natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and if the matter should be remanded for de novo adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,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 Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA
For Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 31/10/2019Pronounced: 13/11/2019

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

1.

The captioned two appeals filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 & 2012-13 respectively, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Kolkata in appeal no. 138/CIT(A)-1/2015-16 and appeal no. 668/CIT(A)/C-1(1)/2015-16, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 263 / 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 14.03.2015 & 30.03.2015 respectively.

Marsons Ltd. Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2012-13

2.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee, as the ld. First appellate authority did not adjudicate issue on merits.

3.

We heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the assessment records and material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before ld. CIT(A). The ld. D.R. for the revenue did not object if the matter is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A). 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, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 13.11.2019

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →