PRAMOD KUMAR ROUT,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-12(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 954/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2010-20112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte and non-speaking order without proper notice to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was heard ex parte. The assessee claimed that no notice of hearing was served, preventing them from appearing and making submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee due to non-service of notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 23.04.2018Pronounced: 18.05.2018

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata dated 13.03.2014 for AY 2010-11.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte and non-speaking order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He also submitted that no notice of hearing was served on the assessee for the dates of hearing on 16.01.2014, 17.02.2014 and 13.03.2014 and in view of this no compliance was possible to be made on behalf of the assessee. Hence, he urged before the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication.

3.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the order of Ld. CIT (A) we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte and non-speaking order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that there is no whisper how the notice was served on the assessee for the dates of hearing on 16.01.2014, 17.02.2014 and 13.03.2014. Since no notice of hearing was served on the assessee informing the date of hearing, it is not understood as to how the 2 Pramod Kumar Rout, AY- 2010-11 assessee would be knowing about the hearing fixed by Ld. CIT (A). So, non-service of notice is deemed as a reasonable cause for non-appearance on the part of the assessee and, therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore the appeal to his file for fresh adjudication on merits by passing a speaking order with a direction upon the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A) on 27th June, 2018. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard.

4.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated :18th May, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Shri Pramod Kumar Rout, 2/62, Surya Nagar, Dayal Udyog, 2nd floor, Kolkata-700 040. Respondent – ITO, Ward-12(2), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →