M/S. HIGHVIEW MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the department.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, but notices from the AO and CIT(A) remained uncomplied with. The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- to the income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was afforded proper opportunity of being heard by the AO and CIT(A), and whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (A
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ) & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
order : May 03, 2019 ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 14, Kolkata dated 11.12.2018 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29.09.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 85,540/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO. The said notice issued u/s 143(2) as well as the subsequent notices issued by the AO u/s 142(1) however remained uncomplied with by the assessee. The AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgement u/s 144 and in the assessment so made vide an order dated 22.12.2016, addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- was made by 2 M/s. Highview Management Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 the AO to the total income of the assessee on account of investment made by the assessee in unlisted shares by treating the same as unexplained.
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 11.12.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised in the appeal of the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) , the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notices of hearing stated to be issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never received by the assessee and the assessee, therefore, could not comply with the same. He has also submitted that proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard was not afforded even by the AO to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and urged that the matter may be sent back to the AO for giving the assessee such an opportunity. Although, the learned DR has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the AO for giving one more opportunity to the assessee, he has 3 M/s. Highview Management Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 contended that some cost should be imposed on the assessee for the non-compliance before the authorities below.
Keeping in view the submissions made by both the sides and having regard to the facts of the case, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to send the matter back to the AO for giving one more opportunity to the assessee, subject however to payment of cost. We accordingly impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee and subject to the payment of the said cost by the assessee to the department, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex- parte is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the AO and shall extend all the cooperation in order to enable the AO to complete the assessment expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd May, 2019.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026