M/S. SURESHAM HOLDINGS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1946/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 February 2017AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte without giving a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The order also failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with notices. The CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper hearing opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was valid without providing a proper hearing opportunity and adhering to procedural requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata dated 28.07.2016 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

2.

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 13.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.74,039/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 15.12.2008, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.1,32,804/- after making additions, inter alia, on account of disallowance of foreign travel expenses. ./2016 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 2 of 3

3.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no full compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the same for non- prosecution vide his appellate order passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was dismissed by the latter by his appellate order passed ex-parte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(Appeals) as per the provision of sub- section (6) of section 250 was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order passed in writing stating therein the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) shows that the same does not meet these mandatory requirements. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 27, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →