What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for the hearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The assessee's appeal was directed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee had sought an adjournment before the CIT(A) but it was rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's reasons for adjournment.

Drgcon (India) Pvt. Ltd… vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

This appeal by the assesse is directed against order of the Ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld.

CIT(A)) dt. 10/10/2014, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter the ‘Act’), for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

The assessee filed an application for adjournment; we rejected the same as we did not find any merit for the reason given for adjournment. that he has been prevented by sufficient cause for hearing before the ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing. The ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order.

Under such circumstances, we set aside this appeal to the file of the ld. First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.

The assessee is directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) on 03/10/2017, take notice and thereafter co-operate in disposal of the appeal.

DRGCON (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MURSHIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

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