What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without discussing the relevant facts and circumstances. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing three effective opportunities of hearing.

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding advances from creditors, telephone expenses, salary, and business expenses. The assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) despite notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without properly adjudicating the grounds of appeal and whether the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing.

Naveen Enterprises vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’s order dated 18.05.2018 passed in case No.447/CIT(A)-10/W-35(2)/2014-15/2016-17/Kol involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

I notice at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte whist confirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing /a addition advances from Sandeep Creditors, telephone expenses, salary and business expenses involving sums of ₹8,88,796/-, ₹20,828/- ₹2,25,418/- & ₹3,650/-; respectively. Learned Addl. CIT-DR vehemently contends during the course of hearing that CIT(A) has afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee for presenting

ITA No. 1749/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Naveen Enterprises Vs. ITO Wd-35(2), Kol. Page 2 its case in the course of lower appellate proceedings. She takes me to page 2 para-3 in CIT(A)’s order suggesting speed post notice dated 10.04.2018 for hearing on 16.05.2018. She fails to dispute that CIT(A) has proceeded ex parte against the assessee for a single default in appearance before CIT(A). Coupled with this, the CIT(A)’s adjudication in respect of all the relevant grounds pleaded has nowhere discussed the relevant facts and circumstances before affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned disallowance(s) /addition(s) as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. I therefore deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the CIT(A) needs to re-adjudicate assessee’s lower appeal afresh as per law after affording three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 31/01/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 31/01/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/s Naveen Enterprises, 55, Ezra St, Gr.Fl. Kolkata-001

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-35(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally Nr. Ruby Hospital, E.M. Bye Pass, Kolkata-107 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

NAVEEN ENTERPRISES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments