What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the medical grounds for the prior adjournment. The ex parte order was passed without proper reasoning.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte due to non-appearance. The assessee pleaded that the order was passed without an opportunity to be heard, supported by a medical certificate for a prior adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, particularly when medical grounds were cited for adjournment.

Countryman Telefilms Private… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

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

Shri Ankit Jalan, AR 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)-23, Kolkata dated 02.03.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-3(2), Kolkata u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 27.12.2010 for assessment year 2008-09. Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

Countryman Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-3(2), Kol. Page 2 3. At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte vide order dated 02.03.2016 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. We also note that the assessee sought adjournment on 19.1.2016 on medical ground which was granted and the matter was adjourned to 9.2.2016 as final opportunity. But on the scheduled date i.e. 9.2.2016 of hearing the assessee failed to appear as well as no adjournment petition was filed by the assessee. However from the above it is transpired that assessee was not medically fit. The illness of the assessee was supported with medical certificate along with the adjournment petition filed by the assessee on 19.1.2016 to the ld. CIT(A).

COUNTRYMAN TELEFILMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 33(2), 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