What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic, non-speaking, and ex parte. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without proper opportunity of being heard. The assessee claimed they did not receive proper notice for the hearing dates.

What were the issues?

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

M/S Shree Valley Realtors Pvt… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]

Hearing: 05.03.2018Pronounced: 07.03.2018

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Kolkata dated 24.11.2016 for AY 2012-13. At the outset, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the first ground of appeal which is as under:

“1. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the order passed by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order and has been passed without going into the merit of the case at all, which is evidenced from para 2 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, which is reproduced as under:

“2. The case was fixed for hearing on 26.10.2016 and 10.11.2016. The case has gone unrepresented and neither any further time was sought by way of an adjournment application. The appellant does not appear to be serious about pursuing this appeal. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record.” He also submitted that the case was fixed only on two occasions.For hearing on 26.10.2016 no notice of hearing was received by the assessee and for hearing on 10.11.2016 notice was received by the assessee only two days before the date of hearing. Hence, he prayed before

Shree Valley Realtors Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2012-13 the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back for passing a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the Ld. AR. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A)

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the order of Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very cryptic, non-speaking and ex parte order. Therefore, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to adjudicate the matter afresh and pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance to law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) diligently and participate in the appellate proceedings and pursue the appeal in accordance to law. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 07.03.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 7th March, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – M/s. Shree Valley Realtors Pvt. Ltd., C/o, Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S. N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-700 013. Respondent – ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata. 2 3. The CIT(A) Kolkata.

M/S SHREE VALLEY REALTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments