What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) due to the actions of their representative. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee company's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed this non-compliance was due to their Authorized Representative, a Chartered Accountant, who failed to appear. This was supported by an affidavit from the company's Director.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance was justified, and if there was a sufficient cause for such non-compliance.

Salarpuria Profin Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. P.M.JAGTAP & SH. S.S.GODARA

Hearing: 23.07.2018Pronounced: 23.07.2018

ORDER

PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata for AY 2007-08.

The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 05.11.2007 declaring a total income of Rs.2,69,01,849/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) vide order dated 13.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs.2,75,53,129/- by enhancing the annual value of the assessee’s house property by an amount of Rs.9,30,400/-. He also did not give credit to the assessee on account of TDS of Rs.3,02,108/-.

Against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 16.05.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard arguments of both sides and perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised in Ground No.1 challenging the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A) ex-parte, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that non-compliance on the part of the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) was attributable to its Authorized Representative, Mr. Vikas Mohata, Chartered Accountant, who was engaged in the matter to appear before Ld.CIT(A).

He has contended that the assessee company was under the bonafide belief that CA, Mr. Vikas Mohata would make proper compliance before Ld.CIT(A) and the facts of non-compliance on his part came to the knowledge of the assessee company only after receipt of the impugned order of ld.CIT(A). Since these submissions made on behalf of the assessee company are duly supported by an affidavit of the Director of the assessee company affirming the relevant facts on oath, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-compliance on the part of the assessee before Ld.CIT(A). Even Ld.DR has not raised any objection in this regard. We therefore set aside the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A) ex- parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make due compliance before Ld.CIT(A) and extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable him to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.07.2018.

SALARPURIA PROFIN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, 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