CORPORATION BANK, BURTOLLA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(2), TDS, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2220/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that they could not represent their case and that the principle of natural justice was violated.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of natural justice and ex-parte decision. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 251,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ghanshyam Kalani, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR, JCIT
Hearing: 09/05/2019Pronounced: 10/05/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-24, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 251/201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’).

2.

We have heard both the parties and persued the materials available on record.

3. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merit of the grounds raised by the assessee. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the order of ld. CIT(A) stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. He contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.

3.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has not controverted the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we note that assessee has not participated in the appellate proceedings. However, we note that ld CIT(A) did not consider the appeal of the assessee on merits. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the 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 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 deed 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, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 10/05/2019.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →