ANURODH MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1056/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 October 2018AY 2012-132 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notice, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee had also shifted its location to Chennai.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM)

Anurodh Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.……………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant 191, C.R. Avenue Kolkata – 700 007 [PAN : AAGCA 9277 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (3), Kolkata............………………………………............Respondent Appearances by: Shri M.D. Shah, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri M.K. Biswas, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : September 6th , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : October 24th , 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-

This is an appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 23, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 02/02/2017, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

Heard rival contentions. After perusing the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), we find that neither the assessee nor any departmental representative has appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence an ex-parte order was passed. The assessee demonstrated before us that it was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ld. CIT(A), as it had not received the notice of hearing. It is also submitted before us that the assessee has shifted to Chennai. Under these circumstances, as the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, on the grounds of natural justice. The assessee is directed to Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anurodh Merchandise Pvt. Ltd appear before the ld. CIT(A) within one month of receipt of this order, either by himself or through his Authorised Representative, take notice and thereafter continue to co- operate till the disposal of the appeal.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 24th day of October, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →