M/S. LIGHTVIEW DEALMARK PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 497/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 July 2018AY 2012-132 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 CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and non-speaking, and the reason for absence was reasonable. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee's AR fell ill and could not attend the hearing. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the illness as a reasonable cause for absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte and non-speaking order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside when a reasonable cause for absence is shown by the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]

Hearing: 05.07.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata dated 05.12.2016 for AY 2012-13.

2.

At the time of hearing Ld. AR for the assessee drew our attention to the impugned order to the fact that the order was passed ex parte and also it is a non-speaking order. He also filed an affidavit for not able to attend before the Ld. CIT(A) on 28.11.2016 as the Ld. AR of the assessee fell ill. Hence, he urged before the bench to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

After hearing both the sides we note that the impugned order is an ex parte and non- speaking order. We also note that the Ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for not attending the hearing on 28.11.2016 before the Ld. CIT(A) as he was suffering fever. We note that the cause shown by the assessee is a reasonable cause for not attending before the Ld. CIT(A) on 28.11.2016 and hence, we are of the view that the matter

Lightview Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., AY 2012-13 should be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. We order accordingly.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →