QUADRA MEDICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal of the assessee arises out of the common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -4, Kolkata for AYs 2009-10 and 2011-12 dated 09.03.2015.

At the outset itself, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that initially when the assessee had filed the first appeal, the jurisdiction was vested with the Ld. CIT(A) – 12 for AY 2009-10 and since the assessee had filed documents and submission before the Ld. CIT(A) -12, the Ld. CIT(A) had called for the remand report from the AO. However, the AO did not send any remand report. Meanwhile, the jurisdiction got changed from Ld. CIT(A) – 12 to Ld. CIT(A) – 4 and the assessee received notice for appeal in respect to AY 2011-12. During the hearing of appeal of AY 2011-12, the Ld. AR drew the attention of the Ld. CIT(A) that the first appeal for AY 2009-10 is pending for want of remand report from the AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without taking cognizance of the remand report as well as without hearing the assessee for AY 2011-12 based on the written submissions have 2 & 631/Kol/2015 Quadra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd, AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 passed the order for both the assessment years which action of the Ld. CIT(A), according to Ld. AR, is violative of natural justice and he pleads that the assessee be granted one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) so that effective adjudication of the appeal can be done by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR does not oppose provided the Ld. AR undertakes to cooperate and appear before the Ld. CIT(A) diligently with all supporting relevant documents so that the Ld. CIT(A) can effectively hear and dispose of the appeal.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the main grievance of the Ld. AR of the assessee is that no effective hearing happened before the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal for AY 2009-10. The aforesaid facts as pleaded by the Ld. AR are not repeated for the sake of brevity. From the aforesaid facts, we note that the jurisdiction of the Ld. CIT(A) got changed from Ld. CIT(A) – 12 to Ld. CIT(A) – 4 and for want of remand report from AO for AY 2009-10 the appeal was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) and so was not adjudicated. When the assessee received notice for hearing of AY 2011-12, the Ld. AR while appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was of the bona fide belief that AY 2009-10 would be adjudicated first and thereafter only AY 2011-12 would be adjudicated. Therefore, at that time he was not prepared to argue the brief entrusted to him so, we are of the opinion that no proper opportunity was given to the Ld. AR of the assessee to effectively plead its case before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh. Therefore, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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