Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi
Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 22-03-2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 14-06-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 30.12.2016. Shri Subash Agarwal, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri S. Dasgupta Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.
At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte vide order dated 30.12.2016 due to non-appearance of the assessee or his authorized representative. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A)
KLH Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-3(1) Kol Page 2 assessee filed an appeal before us and pleaded that the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A) has been passed without giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld. AR before us prayed to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law and requested before the Bench to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal within three months after receipt of the Tribunal’s order.
On the other hand the ld. DR has agreed with the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee if the matter is remanded to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law.
Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of appellate order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of Assessing Officer ex parte without mentioning any reason for confirming the same on merits. The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act require the Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose of the appeal in writing with reasoning.
3.1. We also note that the assessee sought adjournment on 3.10.2016 but on the scheduled date i.e. 29.11.2016 of hearing the assessee failed to appear as well as no adjournment petition was filed by the assessee, hence, Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. Thus, in such circumstances we find in the interest of justice and fair play that Ld. CIT(A) should have given another opportunity to the assessee to appear before him to explain his points of contentions. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue raised by assessee on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceeding and attend the hearing as and when required by Ld. CIT(A) . The Ld. CIT(A)
KLH Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-3(1) Kol Page 3 shall pass the order within three months after the receipt of the order. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.