SUDESHNA PRADHAN,HALDIA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT despite receiving notices. The Department's representative submitted that the assessee was a habitual defaulter and did not comply with notices during assessment and appellate proceedings, leading to ex-parte orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard after failing to appear in previous proceedings. The validity of ex-parte orders passed due to non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SONJOY SARMA & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: September 26th, 2024 ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16.10.2023.
1.1. At the time of hearing before this Tribunal, despite issuing notices to the assessee on 06.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. As a result, we have no option but to decide the appeal on its merits with the assistance of ld. D/R.
I.T.A. No.: 1522/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudeshna Pradhan.
The ld. D/R submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and has failed to comply with the notices issued during the assessment and appellate proceedings. The assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') was based on best judgment, as assessee did not provide the necessary information. Even before ld. CIT(A) the assessee did not turn up, resulting in dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) on ex-parte basis. The ld. D/R further pointed out that ld. CIT(A) issued several notices which are recorded in ld. CIT(A)’s order particularly in para 5. However, despite these notices the assessee did not respond. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) had no alternative but to pass the order ex-parte.
We after hearing the submission of the ld. D/R and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee has failed to appear at multiple stages of the proceedings both at the assessment stage and before ld. CIT(A). Despite several notices being sent to the assessee, it did not comply with requirements which led to ex-parte orders. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we believe that assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. Denying the assessee the opportunity to be heard may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for re-examination of the issues after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard, In the light of the above, we set aside the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. In terms of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026