What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 11 days. The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the matter on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S. Benuban Health Care and… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA

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

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-6, Kolkata dated 21.02.2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act ‘) relating to A.Y. 2013-14.

There is a delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal. After perusing the application filed for condonation of delay, along with evidences, I am convinced that the assessee had reasonable cause and could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence I condone the delay and admit the appeal.

After hearing rival contentions, I find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order. He has not adjudicated the matter on merits. The assessee has demonstrated before me that there was violation of principles of natural justice. Hence I restore the appeal to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law on the ground of natural justice.

M/s Benuban Health Care & Diagnostic Centre A.Y.2013-14 2

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 12.09.2018.

M/S. BENUBAN HEALTH CARE AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA, 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