What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's order without providing any reasoning on merits. The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have given the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear on multiple hearing dates. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing that a reasonable opportunity was not provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly disposed of the appeal by providing a reasoned order and adequate opportunity to the assessee.

M/S Arissan Powergen Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

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

O R D E R

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 29.02.2016.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed any application for adjournment. However, we decide 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 order of Ld. CIT(A) that the case was fixed for hearing on 3 occasions but assessee failed to attend the same. Therefore, the appeal was decided by Ld. CIT(A) as ex parte on 29.02.2016. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us and inter-alia submitted in grounds of appeal that reasonable opportunity was not provided.

M/S ARISSAN POWERGEN 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