M/S TARUSH MARKETING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex parte order without hearing the assessee. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The CIT(A) passed the order despite the assessee having filed an adjournment petition due to the AR's illness, and an extension was granted.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without hearing the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM]
ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.1147/CIT(A)- 3/W-7(2)/14-15(12-13)/Kol dated 15.01.2015 against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-2(4), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.03.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing the ex parte order without hearing the assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2 Tarush Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2010-11 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in trading of foot wear, apparels and accessories. The return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 22.09.2010 showing total income of Rs.27,51,635/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2013 determining the total income of Rs. 58,28,270/-.
The appeal hearing was fixed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 14.01.2016 on which date, the assessee preferred an adjournment petition due to illness of the AR and adjournment was granted to 16.02.2016 on 11:30 am. Ignoring this extension of time granted to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose off the appeal ex parte on 15.01.2016 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to remand this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 16.11.2017
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026