What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided sufficient time for the assessee to present its case.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte without a proper hearing. The CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's order without deciding the issues on merit, citing the assessee's failure to appear and advance arguments.

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, and whether the order was a speaking order.

Divya Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:

- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata dated 25.11.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO(Tech-2), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 29.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13.Grounds raised by assessee are reproduced below:- “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without allowing the appellant any proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2. For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law since the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues ground-wise in respect of the grounds raised by the appellant in the Memo of Appeal.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law since the order passed is not any speaking order nor the CIT(A) has looked into the assessment records and relevant materials to conclude that the order of the Ld. AO cannot be interfered with.

4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not maintainable.

Divya Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Tech-2) Kol. Page 2 5. For that the order of the AO be modified and the assessee be given relief prayed for.

For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.” Shri Sunil Surana, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Ariindam Bhattacherjee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

At the outset it was observed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without deciding the issue on merit. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO ex parte due to fact that the assessee failed to advance any arguments on merits and failed to attend the dates of hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. Therefore the ex parte order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 25.11.2016.

It was further submitted in the grounds of appeal

that the impugned order was disposed of by the ld. CIT(A) without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. As such, it was pleaded before us by the ld. AR to provide one more opportunity and accordingly the matter should be set aside to the ld. CIT(A).

4. Per contra, it is the argument of Ld. DR for the Revenue that opportunities were given to assessee but it did not avail the same. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) had no option but to dispose of the matter ex parte.

5. Be that as it may, it is clear from the record and looking at the absence of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee has no interest to pursue the matter and to get it dispose of on merits. On perusal of the matter, it occurs to our mind that Ld. CIT(A) is motivated to dispose of the matter ex parte only because of his observation that the assessee failed to appear on the dates of hearings. In our considered opinion, it cannot be a ground to deny justice without giving reasonable opportunity to the party affected. It is because in the instant case the assessee also filed adjournment petitions before the Ld. CIT(A). The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act require the

DIVYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO(TECH), 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