What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was ex parte and the assessee was not given an opportunity to plead their case. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) resulted in an ex parte order because the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the assessee. The assessee argued that they could not present their case before the CIT(A) due to non-service of notices.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without proper service of notice to the assessee is valid and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

M/S Chunnilal Megamart Pvt. Ltd vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka

Hearing: 23/04/2018Pronounced: 27/04/2018

Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka Respondent by :Shri Nicolus Murmu, Addl. CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 23/04/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/04/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata in appeal No.10184/CIT(A)-12/Kol./Ward-1(1)/2016-17, dated 31.01.2017, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 20.03.2015.

At the outset, itself the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that notices issued by ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings, have not been served on the assessee, therefore, assessee could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. The ld. counsel also prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. DR did not have M/s Chunnilal Megamart Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). However, he wanted the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and participate in appellate proceedings. We note that the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order is an ex parte order. Therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

We note that the impugned order is an ex parte order and the assessee could not plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the principle of natural justice and fair play, we remit the case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to participate in the appellate proceedings diligently. Therefore, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2018. (A. L. SAINI) (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) "या"यक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता /Kolkata; "दनांक/ Date: 27/04/2018 (RS, SPS) M/s Chunnilal Megamart Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13

M/S CHUNNILAL MEGAMART PVT. LTD,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?

Recent GST High Court judgments