K.D. GUPTA & COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1412/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 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 found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s K.D. Gupta & Company, appealed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they did not receive the notice of hearing before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was validly passed when the assessee did not receive the hearing notice. The need for a fresh adjudication with an opportunity to be heard.

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)-10, dated 04.05.2018 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. The assessee submits that it had not received the notice of hearing. I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing. 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 04.10.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →