EFFECTIVE TIE-UP PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO-3(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte and non-speaking order. The assessee's claim of non-service of notice due to a bona fide change of address was accepted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte and non-speaking order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed that no notice of hearing was served at its new address, leading to a failure to appear and make compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid order without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and if the assessee's failure to appear was due to a bona fide mistake.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Kolkata dated 28.10.2016 for AY 2012-13.
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 vide an affidavit that no notice of hearing was served on the assessee fixing the date of hearing on 18.10.2016 and 27.10.2016 and in view of the matter 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.
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. We also note that the assessee has sworn an affidavit affirming that no notice of hearing was served on the assessee and hence, assessee could not make compliance by instructing its AR to appear and plead its case before the Ld. CIT (A). From the said affidavit we also note that the 2 Effective tie up Private Limited, AY- 2012-13 address of the assessee has changed i.e. at 16A Shakespeare Sarani, New B. K. Market, 5th floor, Kolkata-700 071 in place of 60, Bentinck Street, Kolkata-700 069. Since the notice of hearing has not been served to the assessee in its new address, the Ld. AR of the assessee company could not attend the hearing. The change of address should have been communicated to the Ld. CIT (A) which lapse on the part of assessee is not willful and was a bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication on merits. Needless to say, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and the Ld. CIT (A) to pass a speaking order on the issues raised by the assessee.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 03.05.2018
Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 3rd May, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Effective Tie-up Private Limited, 16A, Shakespeare Sarani, New B. K. Market, 5th floor, Kolkata-700 071. . Respondent – ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) Kolkata.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026