What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee had raised a ground regarding lack of proper opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee failed to represent the case. The assessee contended that this was a violation of natural justice and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without affording proper opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice.

Champion Packaging Industries… vs Incomt Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri M. Tiwari

Hearing: 11/07/2018Pronounced: 03/10/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata in Appeal No.10153/CIT(A)-12/Kol/Ward-3(1)/2016-17 dated 28.02.2017, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 30.03.2015.

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

2 Champion Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13

We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order stating the following:

“3. ……….. However, the appellant’s request was duly considered and the case was adjourned to 25.01.2017 for the next hearing. But no compliance was made from the end of the appellant to represent the case. Neither the appellant nor the A/R of the appellant attended the hearing to represent the case and also no written submission was filed in support of the instant appeal. The appellant always proved its failure to represent the case before the undersigned in spite of having several opportunities offered to. Even since 25.01.2017 no response was made on the part of the appellant to dispose of this case. The appellant remained silent till today.

It is presumed that the appellant is not interested to pursue this appeal and it has nothing to say in defence of the grounds of appeal taken. Therefore, I have no option but to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of materials available on record.”

4. We note that the assessee has raised Ground No.1 stating as follows:

1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal on ex parte view without appreciating that non-compliance on 25.01.2017 was due to compelling reason..

5. We note that a perusal of the body of the impugned order, it is apparent that it is an ex parte order which has been challenged by the assessee for want of proper opportunity. We note that ld CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and findings of ld assessing officer to decide the various issues on merits. We note that assessee has participated in the appellate proceedings and explained the reasons for not attending the office of Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2017. Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld CIT(A).

6. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deed it fit and proper to 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 3 Champion Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on this 03/10/2018. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. Godara) (A. L. Saini) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; Dated: 03/10/2018 RS, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- Champion Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent.- ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयु�त / CIT 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

CHAMPION PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. INCOMT TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), 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