What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing reasons on merits. The tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merit after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) for two consecutive hearings, leading to an ex parte order. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, claiming a lack of reasonable opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly disposed of the appeal on merits and provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

M/S Corporate Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:

- This is an appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata for the assessment year 2012-13, in the matter of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide his order dated 11.03.2016. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed any application for adjournment. However, we decided to dispose of the appeal after considering the materials available on records and hearing the ld. DR.

At the outset, it was observed from the appellate order that the case was fixed for hearing on 05.02.2016 but assessee failed to attend the same. So it was further adjourned to 09.03.2016 but none appeared on behalf of assessee before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was decided by Ld. CIT(A) as ex parte on 11.03.2016. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us and ITA No.925/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Corporate Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-2(2) Kol. Page 2 inter-alia submitted in grounds of appeal that reasonable opportunity was not provided.

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 observe in the interest of justice and fair play that Ld. CIT(A) should have given another opportunity to the assessee to appear before him to explain its 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 and should appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 26/10/2017 ("या%यक सद'य) (लेखा सद'य) (S.S.Viswanethra Ravi) (Waseem Ahmed) Judicial Member Accountant Member *Dkp-Sr.PS )दनांकः- 26/10/2017 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-M/s Corporate Cement Pvt. Ltd.,The Knowledge Hub, Plot DN-23, 5th Fl, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-2(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-69 3. संबं,धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. .वभागीय "%त%न,ध, आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड2 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण, कोलकाता

M/S CORPORATE CEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-2(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