M.S. CLASS TRADERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1751/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 October 2018AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte due to non-service of notices, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that notices from the CIT(A) were not served, preventing them from presenting their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to be heard due to non-service of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri T. Jaiswal, AR
Hearing: 13/08/2018Pronounced: 25/10/2018

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 5, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 107/CIT(A)-5/Cir-14(2)/16-17, dated 29- 05-2017, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), dated 19-03-2016.

2.

At the outset itself, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and assessee could not get opportunity to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that impugned order is an ex-parte order and notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings had not be served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not plead his case

2 M.S.Glass Traders Pvt Ltd Ld. CIT(A). Considering the principle of natural justice and fair play, 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, we 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 after affording 3 effective opportunities of hearing and if the assessee does not participate in the appellate proceedings than our order would be vacated. Therefore, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on this 25/10/2018. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. Godara) (A. L. Saini) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; Dated: 25/10/2018 RS, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- M.S. Glass Traders Pvt. Ltd. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent.- DCIT, CIR 14(2), Kolkata, 2. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयु�त / CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →