M/S. BROADWAY REALTORS (PVT.) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed they did not receive the final hearing notice due to a postal issue and had sought adjournments for previous hearings due to the illness of their Authorized Representative's wife.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata dated 27.12.2017 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 23.03.2010 declaring total income of Rs.91,349/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 29.04.2014, the total income as declared by the assessee in the return was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently he, however, found that there was a mistake in the said assessment in not disallowing two cash payments made by the assessee against the expenditure in the sums exceeding Rs.20,000/- as required by section 40A(3) of the Act. He accordingly rectified the said
Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 3 mistake vide an order dated 29.04.2014 passed under section 154 making a disallowance of Rs.69,791/- under section 40A(3) of the Act.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the later dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 27.12.2017 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before he Tribunal.
At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 14 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 14 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. I accordingly condone the said delay.
5 . In Ground No. 1 raised in this appeal, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-party without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. In support of the case of the assessee on this issue, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that although none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the first two hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 01.08.2017 and 30.08.2017, the assessee duly sought adjournments in writing on the subsequent two hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 26.09.2017 and 06.11.2017 on the ground of serious illness of the wife of the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. He has submitted that thereafter the hearing was fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 21.12.2017, but the assessee could not attend on the said
Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026