What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance, as notices for subsequent hearings were not received. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed to have received notices for only two out of five hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of hearing notices to the assessee.

Rajeev Goyal vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata dated 03.01.2018 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 21.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.55,42,640/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 16.03.2013, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.68,84,910/- after making certain additions.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) disputing the additions made by the Assessing Officer to its total income and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearings from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 03.01.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that out of the five hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee had received notices of only the first two hearings. He has submitted that the assessee sought adjournments on these first two hearings and since the notices of the subsequent three hearings were never received by the assessee, he could not comply with the same. Keeping in view this submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and even the ld. D.R. has not raised any material contention to dispute this position. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2018.

RAJEEV GOYAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, 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