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
Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 31-10-2017 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 10-11-2017 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)-1, Kolkata dated 29.03.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-1(2), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 31.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Arindm Bhattacharyee, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.
A.Y. 2009-10 Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd Vs. ITO, Wd-1(2) Kol Page 2 2. The first issue raised by assessee is that Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.
At the outset, it was observed Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex parte on 29.03.2016. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us and submitted in grounds of appeal that a verbal request was made to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjourn the hearing on 30- 3-2016 on the ground that another case of the assessee was fixed for the hearing. But the Ld. CIT(A) inadvertently passed the ex parte order on 29.03.2016. The Ld. counsel for assessee produced the copy of the order of ld. CIT-A of other case of the assessee pertaining to the AY 2008-09 which is placed on record. The other case of the assessee was decided by the ld. CIT(A) on 31-03-2016. As such, it was pleaded before us that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the assessee and accordingly it was prayed to restore the matter to the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication. The ld. DR raised no objection if the matter is restored to ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
4. On perusal of appellate order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of Assessing Officer ex parte without mentioning any reason for confirming the same on merits. The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act require the Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose of the appeal in writing with reasoning. But we find from the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO without deciding the same on merit. We also find 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. 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 on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceeding as and when call by Ld. A.Y. 2009-10 Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Ltd Vs. ITO, Wd-1(2) Kol Page 3 CIT(A). Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.