M/S KOMAL SOOD CREATIONS,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-58, TDS, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1446/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 February 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity to be heard as their request for adjournment was ignored.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and thus violating the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(k),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

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

Shri Monoj Kataruka, Advocate अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 05-02-2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /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)-24, Kolkata dated 23.05.2016. Penalty levied by JCIT, (TDS), Range-58 Kolkata u/s 272A(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 22.02.2012 for assessment year 2010-11. Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Arindm Bhattacherjee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

2.

At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte vide order dated 23.05.2016 due to non-appearance of the assessee or its authorized representative. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld.

M/s Komal Sood Creations Vs. JCIT, Rg-58 (TDS), Kol. Page 2 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 raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law.

3.

Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It was observed that the assessee filed adjournment petition seeking time for 10 days vide letter dated 19.5.2016 but the ld. CIT(A) without considering the same decided the issue vide order dated 23.05.2016. The copy of the adjournment petition is enclosed on page 22 of the paper book which reads as under:- “19.05.2016 To: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 3rd floor, Room No.61 Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata- 70 069 Dear, Sir, Re; M/s Komal Sood Creations 43, Park Mansion Park Street, Kolkata-700016 IT Appeal No.112 for the Asst. Yr. 2010-11 Sub: Request for adjournment of appeal for the Assessment year 2010-11 In the case of the above mentioned assessee, fixing compliance on 19th of May, 2016, it is to be submitted that since the Authorised Representative is out of station and would return back after 10 days, it would not be possible for him to attend to the same. In the circumstances, it is requested that reasonable opportunity be given to the assessee for making reply and accordingly the hearing may kindly be adjourned by 10 days. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-Illegible For, Manoj Kataruka (Authorised Advocate)” In view of above, we note that the appeal has been decided by the ld. CIT(A) qua the assessee without considering the request made by the assessee vide letter dated 19.5.2016. Thus, in such circumstances we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi

More judgments on Section 274

All 4,894 judgments and leading authorities on Section 274 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →