CHANDRAMUKHI IMPEX (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 670/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the case on merits and violated the principle of natural justice by not affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case, violating the principle of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of the principle of natural justice and lack of proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12/03/2019Pronounced: 15/05/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-16, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 28.03.2015.

3.

At the outset itself, the assessee by way of grounds of appeal assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before

Chandramukhi Impex (P) Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 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 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.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records ground wise and did not pass order on merits based on the documents available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. Besides, ld. CIT(A) did nto consider the entire submissions of the assessee. We note that the ld. CIT(A) failed to determine the obligations and rights of the assessee. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the aggrieved party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Hence we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to assessee to plead his case before 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, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 15.05.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →