M/S AVENUE SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2186/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 February 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and provide proper explanations or evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order confirming the AO's assessment was heard. The assessee sought an adjournment due to their advocate's unavailability, but the tribunal dismissed the petition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's ex-parte assessment order without proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata dt. 30-08-2016 for the A.Y 2008-09, wherein he confirmed the assessment order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3)/263 of the Act ex-parte.

2.

The only issue to be decided as to whether the CIT-A ex parte is justified in confirming the assessment order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3)/263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

At the time of hearing before us, one, Mr. K. Dixit, claiming to be as staff of the assessee filed an adjournment application dt. 29- 01-2018 stating that Shri Mr. S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, on record, is attending before the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Addl. Bench Delhi on the appointed date and in view of his non availability and prayed to adjourn the case to any other date convenient to the Bench.

4.

The ld. DR submits that the assessee did not appear before the CIT-A and also failed to give proper explanation in substantiating its claim and contention by proper evidence along with explanation. The AO was justified in making the impugned assessment u/s. 143(3)/263 of the Act, which was rightly confirmed by the CIT-A ex parte. After perusing the case record and hearing the ld.DR, we dismiss the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record.

5.

On perusal of records, we find that neither the assessee nor any representative on behalf of the assessee appeared before the CIT-A to prosecute its case by rendering proper explanation. According to CIT-A, the assessee availed opportunities of being heard on three occasions, but he failed to submit any evidence or explanation to substantiate its claim as made in the grounds of appeal. We find that before the CIT-A there was no proper representation or explanation on behalf of the assessee in substantiating its claim by any evidence and explanation. Therefore, taking into consideration material evidence in this regard, facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of the CIT-A to decide the issue in hand afresh by giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed not to seek any adjournment. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences and explanation in support of its contention and claim.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-02-2018

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →