What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice, acknowledging the possibility of non-receipt of notices due to address change.

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed that a change in address was not communicated to the CIT(A), leading to non-receipt of hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without proper opportunity of being heard, and if the matter should be restored for fresh consideration.

M/S Manipur Fiscal Services Pvt… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA

Before: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

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)-3, Kolkata dated 25.01.2017. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-8(1), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 23.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13. Shri S.M. Surana, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Saurabh Kumar, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue.

M/s Manipur Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward-8(1) Kol. Page 2 2. The grounds raised by assessee per its appeal are as under:- “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex parte without allowing the appellant any proper opportunity of being heard when the notice of hearing was not served and the Ld. AO.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting the grounds of appeal raised when all the details were filed and were record of the AO, the AO did not proceed further to examine various details duly filed.

4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,50,00,000/- made by the AO holding that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness was not proved simply because the capital was raised at huge premium or the Directors of the shareholder companies were not produced.

5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs.6,40,00000/-

6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) be modified and the assessee be given the relief prayed for.”

3. At the outset, it was observed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order on the ground that nobody from the side of assessee attended the hearing at the appellate stage in spite of the fact that the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. However, Ld. AR for the assessee before us submitted that there was change in the address of the assessee and this fact was duly brought to the notice of the same was not communicated to Ld. CIT(A). Ld AR further requested the Bench to restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration in the above circumstances. On the other hand, Ld. DR before us submitted that the AO has passed a speaking order after considering all the necessary facts of the case and therefore it should be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). He vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. From the foregoing discussion, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order by observing that assessee failed to appear before him at the time of hearing of the case. We further find that the AO has passed a speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to M/s Manipur Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward-8(1) Kol. Page 3 assessee and considering the necessary documents. In this view of the matter and for the interest of natural justice we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say that assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceedings as and when asked by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this appeal of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court 02/06/2017 Sd/- Sd/- (�या�यक सद�य) (लेखा सद�य) (N.V.Vasudevan) (Waseem Ahmed) (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata, *Dkp, Sr.P.S �दनांकः- 02/06/2017 कोलकाता । आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-M/s Manipur Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., 501A, Diamond Prestige, 5th Floor, 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-17 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ITO, Ward-8(1), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kol-69 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/

Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता ।

M/S MANIPUR FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD 8(1),KOL., 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