BIJAY SHANKAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance with the notices. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee claimed that notices for hearings were not received in time or were received very close to the hearing dates, preventing proper compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 26.09.2018 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
The assessee in the present case is an individual. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him declaring total income of Rs.1,62,075/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3)/147 vide an order dated 19.12.2017, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.9,61,575/- after making two additions of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.2,49,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 and unexplained expenditure under section 69C respectively.
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bijay Shankar Agarwal
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing on 28.08.2018 and 24.09.2018, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 26.09.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
I 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 this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for not complying with the notices of hearing issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as under:- “1. That, I have not been provided the proper opportunity by the Ld Commissioner of income tax (appeals)-14/Kolkata. The First notice of hearing of appeal before him dated 14.08.2018 fixing the hearing on 28.08.2018 was received after the date of Hearing on 29.08.2018 at 5:15 P.M at the communication address of the appellant. I brought the matter in the knowledge of Id CIT(A) on 31.08.2018. 2. That another notice dated 06.09.2018 fixing the hearing on 24.09.2018 was received on 22.09.2018 (Saturday) at the communication address of the appellant. The appellant contacted with notice, authorized representative for this case on 28.09.2018 at 6:14 P.M. 3. The appellant pleads that by any chance the hearing fixed on 24.09.2018, would not have been possible to attend as the time allowed was almost absent. The appellant also state that his another appeal case for AY 2013-14 was also fixed on 24.09.2018 and for that Case the adjournment was sought and granted. 4. The appellant filed the written submission and documentary evidences in paper book with the office of the Ld CIT(A) on 08.10.2018 for AY 2012-13 and also for AY 2013-14.
5. However the ld CIT (A) passed the ex-parte order for appeal of AY 2012-13 on 26.09.2018 for the reason of non- prosecution. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bijay Shankar Agarwal Keeping in view the affirmations made by the assessee on oath in the affidavit as above, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-compliance of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing his appeal for hearing on two occasions. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 04, 2019.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026