DHANLAXMI CONCLAVE PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 13(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive hearing notices during appellate proceedings and therefore could not plead their case. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside to grant the assessee another opportunity.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that they did not receive hearing notices and thus could not present their case, violating natural justice principles.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to violation of natural justice by not providing hearing notices 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, “D”, 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 2012-13, is directed against an order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, 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 29.03.2015.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits and the Dhanlaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 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. The ld. Counsel stated before the Bench that assessee did not get notice of heaing during appellate proceedings therefore he could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the 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) 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 could not receive notices of hearing during the appellate proceeding therefore he could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). 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) for de novo adjudication. 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
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