What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh disposal.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed he never received these notices and only learned of the order when his bank account was attached. The ITAT considered these submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notices. Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance.

Jitendra Kumar Gupta vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM]

order

: March 21, 2018 ORDER

PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata dated 18.01.2016.

The assessee in the present is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading of textile products. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 29.10.2008 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,49,240/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 29.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 14,63,922/- after making the following additions: 1. Difference in Opening Balance Rs. 1,94,880/- 2. Undisclosed Purchases Rs. 4,50,351/- 3. Profit from Undisclosed Purchases Rs. 24,220/- Rs. 6,45,231/- 4. Unexplained Cash

Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jitendra Kumar Gupta 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 additions made by the A.O. to his total income and keeping in view that there was no 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 appellate order dated 18.01.2016 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing fixed today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) is explained by the assessee in writing by submitting that none of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the hearing of appeal from time to time was received by him. The assessee has also submitted that even the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte on 18.01.2016 was not received by him and he came to know about the same only after receiving a letter from the Assessing Officer on 17.02.2017 informing about the attachment of his bank account for recovery of outstanding demand. Keeping in view these submissions made by the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) when his appeal was fixed for hearing. I accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex- parte and remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jitendra Kumar Gupta directed to make due compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) so as to enable to him to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2018.

JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 41(40, 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