What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT after the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to non-appearance. The assessee sought an adjournment before the ITAT, which was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities violated the principles of natural justice and if the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard.

Aristo Industries vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2019

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

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2514/Kol/2017

I.T.A. No. 2515/Kol/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristo Industries..............…………..........….............................……………......…………..…………….....Appellant Room No. 79 Stephen House 4, B.B.D. Bag East, Kolkata West Bengal – 700 001 [PAN : AAQFA 0851 K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(2), Kolkata....................................................................…......Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT Sr. D/R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : May 14th ,, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : May 17th, 2019 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-

Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld.CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 6th September, 2017, for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

There is a petition for adjournment. As we are of the considered opinion that this case is not fit for grant of adjournment, we reject the same and dispose off these appeals ex-parte, qua the assessee, on merits, after hearing the ld. D/R.

Heard the ld. D/R. We find that the Assessing Officer in this case has passed an order u/s 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order on the ground that the assessee has not appeared despite issual of notice. From the record it is seen that the ld. CIT(A) had fixed only two dates of hearing in both these appeals. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, we restore these appeals to the file of the ld.

Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristo Industries CIT(A), for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A), within one month of receipt of this order, take notice and thereafter co- operate till the disposal of the appeals.

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

Kolkata, the 17th day of May, 2019.

ARISTO INDUSTRIES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 34(2), KOLKATA, 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