What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2006-07. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) did not consider their written submissions, while the CIT(A) contended that multiple notices were sent over four years without the assessee appearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and whether the assessee was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing.

M/S Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH

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

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dt. 03-07-2014 passed by the CIT-A, IV, Kolkata for the A.Y 2006-07.

The assessee has raised as many as six grounds of appeal, amongst which the effective ground is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A is justified in passing an ex parte order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The ld.AR submits that the AO determined the income of the assessee at loss of Rs.16,47,9794/- against the loss returned by the assessee at Rs.22,13,82,282/- vide his order dt. 23-12-08 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

He also submits that the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT-A against such order of the AO and written submissions vide dt. 13-02-2012. The CIT-A passed an ex parte order without considering the same. The ld.AR of the assessee undertakes that the assessee is ready to prosecute its case without seeking adjournment and as such urged to remand the issues to the file of the CIT-A.

On the other hand, the ld.DR submits that the CIT-A sent notices on 16-03-2010, 05-01-2012, 03-10-2013, 27-02-2014 and 20-06-2014 to the given address of the assessee. But, the assessee did not appear before the CIT-A for four years. The CIT-A waited for 4 years and then he passed ex parte order under the given circumstances as reflected and mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order of the CIT-A. He supported the orders of the AO and the CIT-A.

Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT-A sent notices to the given address of assessee as mentioned in Form No.35. But, however, the assessee did not appear before him in the first appellate stage. Taking into consideration the submissions of the ld. AR and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue(s) to the file of the CIT-A for his fresh adjudication and to pass an order as per law after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings without seeking any further adjournment. The assessee is at liberty to file requisite evidences, if any, to substantiate its claim properly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07-06-2017.

M/S ANDREW YULE & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, 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