MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 40(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 960/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 August 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 not given adequate opportunity and the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The assessee contended that they were not given adequate opportunity before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether principles of natural justice were violated by the CIT(A) by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and failing to decide the case on merits.

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]

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-12, Kolkata dated 05.03.2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act ‘) relating to A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

After hearing rival contentions, I am of the view that principles of natural justice requires that I set aside the issue to the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Adequate opportunity has not been given to the assessee in the present case before the ld. CIT(A) and also for the reason that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to dispose off the case on merits which is bad in law.

3.

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 30.08.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →