What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed an adjournment request on the last hearing date, which was rejected by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's request for adjournment, stating non-compliance with previous notices and opportunities. The original assessment order had added unexplained credits of Rs. 61,21,34,985/- as loans.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex parte without considering the merits of the case.

M/S Salputri Commerce Private… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

Hearing: 22.05.2018Pronounced: 25.05.2018

ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 1249/CIT(A)- 1/W-1(4)/2015-16 dated 29.09.2016 against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 24.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

M/s Salputri Commerce Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 2. The only effective ground to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte , in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of this issue is that against the order of the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.03.2015 wherein unexplained credits in the form of loan to the tune of Rs. 61,21,34,985/- was added in the assessment, an appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:

“The hearing in this case was initially fixed on 29.08.2016 but on the appointed date none attended. The case was again fixed on 16.09.2016. On that date the AR of the appellant filed a letter requesting for adjournment and the case was adjourned for 23.09.2016. On that date the AR of the appellant again filed a letter requesting for adjournment but the request was not granted as the appellant did not comply to the notices and three opportunities provided earlier. Under the circumstances, it appears that the appellant does not want to pursue this appeal, therefore, I have no option but to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of material available on record………………………………… In the instant case, the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the AO was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious without any basis. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the AO.”

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the assessee had duly filed an adjournment on the last date of hearing that is on 23.09.2016 which has been duly noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order and adjournment sought for was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex parte. We deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to remand this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and decide the issue on merits. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 14.06.2018 and not to seek adjournment 2

M/s Salputri Commerce Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2012-13 except due to exceptional or bonafide circumstances. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 25.05.2018

M/S SALPUTRI COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments