What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex parte order. The assessee's representative argued that only one notice was issued and a proper opportunity of hearing was not provided.

M/S. Dhanlaxmi Business Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Q: What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an ex parte order.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]

Hearing: 02.01.2019Pronounced: 16.01.2019

ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, Kolkata dated 28.02.2017 for AY 2012-13.

At the outset itself, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the impugned order is an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and only one notice has been issued on 10.01.2017. He also drew our attention to para 3 of the impugned order wherein Ld. CIT(A) has observed – “Notice has been issued on 10.01.2017. Despite hearing fixed, no one has attended. Hence, the order is passed ex parte”. So, according to Ld. AR, proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). We note that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, so, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after affording reasonable

Dhanlaxmi Business Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance to law. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

M/S. DHANLAXMI BUSINESS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments