What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, on the grounds of natural justice, the appeals were set aside for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed appeals against ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee's request for adjournment was rejected by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex parte orders without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Nazima Mumtaz, Murshidabad vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM]

ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: These appeals are filed by the assessee directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-12, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009- 10.

After hearing the rival submissions, I find that the First Appellate Authority has passed an ex parte order, after rejecting the request for adjournment made by the assessee. The assessee has satisfied me that she was prevented by sufficient cause, from appearing before the ld. CIT(A) in response to the notice of hearing. Hence on the ground of natural justice, these appeal are set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity. The assessee shall appear before the ld. CIT(A) within one month of the receipt of this order and take notice and thereafter cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the appeal.

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 24.04.2018.

NAZIMA MUMTAZ,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, JANGIPUR, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments