What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee argued that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte after the assessee sought an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Abhiyan Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (B

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

order

: April 04, 2018 ORDER

PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) – 3, Kolkata dated 28.11.2016 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him.

The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of transportation. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs. 13,26,736/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28.03.2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. of Rs. 80,18,940/- after making the following additions: “1. Disallowance U/S 14A Rs. 21,380/- 2. Difference between the sundry debtors balance Rs. 93,04,083

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Abhiyan Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Disallowance of assessee’s claim for loss on sale of motor cycle Rs 20,210/-“

3. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing all the three additions made by the A.O. to its total income and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee raised a preliminary issue in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte on the ground that the same was passed without allowing reasonable, adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee before him was fixed for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A) on 03.11.2016. The assessee however sought adjournment and since none appeared on the adjourned date, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte without giving any further opportunity to the assessee of being heard. A perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) also shows that the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing initially on 03.11.2016 and when the assessee sought adjournment, a very short period of time was allowed by him which is evident from the fact that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by him vide his impugned order passed ex-parte on Assessment Year: 2012-13 Abhiyan Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

28.11.2016. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the appeal of the assessee filed before him was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order passed ex-parte without allowing reasonable, adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and even the learned DR has not been able to dispute this position. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 4th April, 2018.

ABHIYAN CARGO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD.8(1), 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