What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The Departmental Representative agreed to a remand.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

M/S. Rankini Tracom Private… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

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 2012-13 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata dated 05.12.2016.

Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

M/s Rankini Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-4(1), Kol. Page 2 2. At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte vide order dated 05.12.2016 due to non-appearance of the assessee or his authorized representative. 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. 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.

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 mentioning any reason for confirming the same on merits. The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act require the Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose of the appeal in writing with reasoning.

3.1. We also note that the assessee sought adjournment on 03.10.2016 but on the scheduled date i.e. 29.11.2016 of hearing the assessee failed to appear as well as no adjournment petition was filed by the assessee, 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 his 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 M/s Rankini Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-4(1), Kol. Page 3 and attend the hearing as and when required by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

M/S. RANKINI TRACOM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(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