SHALIMAR TIE-UP PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that ex parte orders were passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The change of address was considered a bona fide mistake.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against ex parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A). The assessee claimed that notices were not served due to an incorrect address, preventing them from being heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities passed ex parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata dated 10.02.2017 for AY 2009-10.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO has passed ex parte order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He also submitted that the AO in the assessment order passed u/s. 144/263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in para 2.1 stated that a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 13.08.2014 was issued to the assessee company as per its last known address viz., 7/1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata700 012, giving opportunity of hearing on 02.09.2014. But the same was returned back with postal remarks “Insufficient Address”. Another re-fixation letter was issued on 17.10.2014 but the same was returned unserved with the remark “Insufficient Address”. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of details and information available. The Ld. AR further submitted that no notice of hearing was served on the assessee from the office of the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing on 27.12.2016, 09.01.2017 and 31.01.2017 and in view of the matter no compliance was Shalimar Tie-up Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2009-10 possible to be made on behalf of the assessee. Hence, he urged before the Bench to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO has passed the an ex parte orders. We also note that the assessee has submitted that no notice of hearing was served on the assessee and hence, assessee could not make compliance by instructing its AR to appear and plead its case before the Ld. CIT (A) as well as the AO. We also note that the address of the assessee has changed i.e. at C/o Ahmad Ehtisham, Director, 14/35(1), Civil Lines, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh-208001. Since the notice of hearing has not been served to the assessee in its new address, the Ld. AR of the assessee company could not attend the hearing. The change of address should have been communicated to the Ld. CIT (A) as well as to the AO, which lapse on the part of assessee is not willful and was a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 27th June, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – M/s. Shalimar Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., C/o Ahmad Ehtisham, Director, 14/35(1), Civil Lines, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh-208001. Respondent – ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) -1, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026