KARAN VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE, THANE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHANKaran Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 207, Maharshi Devendra Road, Kolkata – 700 007, West Bengal. PAN: AACCK3689G Vs. ACIT Centra Circle-2, 6th floor, Road No. 16Z, Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industries Estate, Thane (W) – 400 604 (Appellant)
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2019-20, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte Karan Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. as despite services of notice, the assessee failed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). 2. It was argued on behalf of the appellant/assessee that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never received or served upon the assessee and as such they could not present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) who proceeded ex parte and decided the appeal on merit without giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and as such the assessee was prevented from present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and liable to be set aside. The Ld. DR on the other hand supporting the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the rival submissions. Section 250 sub section 2(a) of "the Act" provides as under: “Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal: - a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorised representative;” Karan Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 4. It is evident from the provision that the hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. We have examined the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) who observed as under: -
“The details of opportunities of being heard provided to the assessee are tabulated below for ready reference:
Sr.
No.
Date of Notice
Date of Hearing
Remarks
1
09.11.2022
-
Enablement of communication window
2. 13.07.2023
02.08.2023
Requested for short adjournment
3. 08.08.2023
28.08.2023
No response.
4. 28.09.2023
17.10.2023
No response.
5. 01.11.2023
21.11.2023
No response.
6. 04.12.2023
20.12.2023
No response.
7. 01.01.2024
16.01.2024
No response.
8. 31.01.2024
16.02.2024
No response.
9. 08.03.2024
22.03.2024
No response.
10. 02.05.2024
10.05.2024
No response.
It is thus evident from the contents of the impugned order extracted above that no effective opportunity of hearing has been given and there is no proof that the notice sent on various dates were duly served or brought to the notice of the appellant/assessee. Karan Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 6. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that matter needs to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for giving effective hearing to the assessee who shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 60 days. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.01.2025 (B R BASKARAN) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai / Dated 03.01.2025 Dhananjay, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //// BY ORDER
(Asstt.