VEELINE MEDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to lack of proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Dr. A. L. Saini:
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, is directed against an order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata (in short the ld. CIT(A)], which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) & 115WE(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act) dated 16.12.2011.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before 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 Veeline Media Ltd. Assessment Year:2009-10 interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) / 115WE(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not participated in the appellate proceedings. However, we note that ld CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and findings of ld assessing officer to decide the various issues on merits. We note that a perusal of the body of the impugned order, it is apparent that it is an ex parte order which has been challenged by the assessee for want of proper opportunity. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the 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 treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 30.01.2019
More judgments on Section 115WE(3)
- Gtn Textiles Limited, Ernakulam vs DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1) Kochi, ErnakulamITA 807/COCH/2025[2006-07]Status: Disposed21 Nov 2025AY 2006-07
- Mascot Industries, Kannur vs DCIT Circle 1(1), KannurITA 359/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2024AY 2006-07
- The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda vs Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd…ITA 3367/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: Disposed26 Sept 2024AY 2007-08
- M/S. Prakash Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. CIT, HisarITA 349/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: Disposed5 Jan 2024AY 2006-07
- Bilfinger Neo Structo Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly… vs The ACIT, Circle-1, SuratITA 1101/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2022AY 2006-07
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026