SUJALI TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 776/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 November 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the order was ex parte and the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order within three days of serving notice, not providing sufficient time for submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, leading to an ex parte decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai, Staff
Hearing: 20/11/2017Pronounced: 29/11/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09, is directed against the order passed by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata in Appeal No.1566/CIT(A)-2/2014-15,dated 08.02.2016, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 263/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 30.03.2014.

2.

At the outset, itself the Ld.AR pointed out the impugned order is an ex parte order and therefore, the assessee could not plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A) , he prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. DR did not have any objection if the matter is remitted before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that the assessment was carried out u/s 263/144 of the Act and the impugned order is an ex parte order. We do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →