JAMUNA SERVICE STATION,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD - 42(4), MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 804/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 October 2018AY 2014-152 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 set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex-parte order because the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. The CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the case on merits and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM]

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-102 dated 30.11.2017 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act ‘) relating to A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

After hearing rival contentions, I find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing. The ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits as required by law. I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 10.10.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →