What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing as notices were not served and the order lacked reasoning as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that it did not receive proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order. Whether the CIT(A)'s order complied with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

Pasari Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’ble AM]

order : January 17, 2018 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) -2, Kolkata dated 01.06.2017 passed ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee in the present case is a company who derives income from rent and upgradation charges. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.09.2008 declaring a total income at Nil. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 23.11.2010, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 6,93,788/- after making certain additions.

Pasari Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing the additions made by the A.O. and since there was no satisfactory compliance to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time as stated in the Tabular Form given in his impugned order as under, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order passed ex-parte: Date of Date of Remarks Notice Hearing  As per record, the AR appeared and 08.04.2016 04.05.2016 case was adjourned for 03.06.2016. 03.06.2016  As per record, non-appeared nor any adjournment was filed / available on record.  As per order sheet entry, the AR 16.06.2016 appeared and case was adjourned for 20.06.2016.  As per order sheet entry, the AR 20.06.2016 appeared and case was adjourned. 22.07.2016 05.08.2016  As per record non-appeared nor any adjournment was filed / available on record.  The notice was come back with 06.03.2017 10.04.2017 remarks ‘D/C for I/S 20.03.2017/21.032017 Final’.  The notice was come back with 26.04.2017 23.05.2017 remarks ‘D/C for I/S 02.05.2017/03.05.2017 Final’.  As per speed post tracking system, the notice was not served but there are some remarks on the envelope such as ‘door locked / intimation served / unclaimed’. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

PASARI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(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