EMERALD COMPANY LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WARD II(I), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2214/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 April 2017AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the assessee's rights and duties were not determined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to the assessee's absence and failure to file submissions, allegedly due to ill health. The assessee appealed this ex-parte order to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity of hearing and considering the issues on merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

Hearing: 12/04/2017Pronounced: 26/04/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10, is directed against an order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XII Kolkata, in appeal No. 271/XII/11(1)/11-12, dated 14.10.2014, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 29.11.2011.

2.

Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 22.09.2009 disclosing a total income of Rs.20,02,107/-. The return of income was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act on dated 03.11.2010. Later on, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making various additions.

3.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, by passing an exparte order. The ld CIT(A) observed that assessee did not attend the hearing and did not file the written submissions therefore, ld CIT(A). As a result, the ld CIT(A) took the view that the assessee did not want to pursue appeal therefore ld CIT(A) passed the exparte order, i.e. without presence of the assessee.

4.

Not being satisfied with the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken the four grounds of appeal. The first ground raised by the assessee is against the ex-parte dismissal of appeal by ld CIT(A). Ground No. two, three and four raised by the assessee are on merits, which were not pressed by the assessee, therefore, we do not adjudicate them. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that ld CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte order without actually considering the subject issues on merit & without providing proper opportunity of hearing.

5. Ld AR for the assessee has submitted that because of ill health the assessee could not attend the office of the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT (A) passed the order in hurry without providing further opportunity of hearing.

The ld DR for the Revenue did not object the propositions canvassed by the ld AR of the assessee. been determined by the ld CIT(A), therefore, we remit the case back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh, on merit after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to furnish the documents, information and explanation as required, by the ld CIT(A).

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 26/04/2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →