INTIMATE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 394/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 April 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee claimed they were suffering from high fever and could not attend the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 27.12.2016.

1.

Shri M.D.Shah, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri A. K.Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

Intimate Commotrade Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO Wd-6(2) Kol. Page 2 2. At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte vide order dated 27.12.2016 due to non-appearance of the assessee or his authorized representative but after considering the written submission filed by the assessee. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us and pleaded that the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A) has been passed without giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld. AR before us prayed to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee was suffering from high fever on the last date of hearing i.e. 18.12.2016 therefore he failed to attend the same. The ld. AR in support of his claim filed the copy of the affidavit duly notarized & signed by the assessee. On the other hand the ld. DR has agreed with the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee if the matter is remanded to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law.

3.

Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of appellate order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of Assessing Officer ex parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3.1. We also note that the assessee failed to appear on the last date of hearing due to illness as stated in the affidavit filed before us. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order. Thus, in such circumstances we find in the interest of justice and fair play that Ld. CIT(A) should have given another opportunity to the assessee to appear before him to explain its points of contentions. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue raised by assessee on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceeding and attend the hearing as Intimate Commotrade Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO Wd-6(2) Kol. Page 3 and when required by Ld. CIT(A) . Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →