Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi
None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-11-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-11-2017 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)-10, Kolkata dated 22.01.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward- 32(2), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.10.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. Penalty levied by ITO vide u/s 271(1)(c) dated 17.12.2013.
At the time of hearing, we find that neither anybody appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed. However, we noticed that the grievance of the assessee in its ground of appeal
is that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the A.Y. 2009-10 Sunita Jajodia Vs. ITO Wd-36(2), Kol Page 2 ex-parte order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, we decided to dispose of the appeal after considering the materials available on records and in the absence of the assessee.
3. At the outset, it was observed that the assessee before us in the grounds of appeal has pleaded that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of being heard.
4. However, on perusal of appellate order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of Assessing Officer after considering the written submission filed by the assessee vide dated 19.1.2016 and orders of the AO. Thus, it cannot be concluded the order of the ld. CIT(A) was ex parte and without mentioning any reason. But we also notice that the order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without the personal appearance of the assessee or his authorized representative. We further note the case before ld. CIT(A) was fixed for hearing only just one time i.e. 19.01.2016 as evident from the order of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play Ld. CIT(A) should have given another opportunity to the assessee to appear before him to explain his points of contentions. In this regard, Ld. DR also raised no objection if the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue raised by assessee afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceeding. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.