What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was ex parte as the assessee did not appear. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and violated natural justice principles, failing to adjudicate on merits.

What were the issues?

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

Ravi Construction, Port Blair vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR

Hearing: 24/01/2019Pronounced: 30/01/2019

Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against an order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, 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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act) dated 10.03.2015. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental

Ravi Construction Assessment Year:2012-13 Representative was present for the appellant revenue. In the absence of any appearance by assessee, the appeal is being disposed off ex parte qua the assessee.

At the outset itself, we note that the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending in ground no. 1 and 2 raised by it that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits and the assessee could not plead 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.

We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(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 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. Ravi Construction Assessment Year:2012-13 6.. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 30.01.2019 (A.T.VARKEY) (A.L.SAINI) "या"यकसद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; "दनांक/ Date: 30/01/2019 (SB, Sr.PS) Copy of the order forwarded to:

Ravi Construction

DCIT, Port Blair

C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- Kolkata.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File.By Order

RAVI CONSTRUCTION,PORT BLAIR vs. DCIT, PORT BLAIR, PORT BLAIR

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