VB SEVA TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 40, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a religious trust, filed appeals before the CIT(A) after their income was processed under section 143(1). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex parte after issuing multiple notices to the assessee, to which there was no compliance or adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly granted an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing an ex parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT
Pronounced: 09.07.2024

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Paul, Addl. CIT Date of conclusion of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 19-12-2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax, Appeals, Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14.

2.

The grievance of the assessee is that no proper opportunity was granted by the Ld. CIT(A) before passing the ex parte order. Through the grounds assessee has stated that without considering the fact that the assessee duly filed the written submissions along with the supporting documents passed the impugned order ex parte and it prayed that one more opportunity is granted and the issues be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication upon providing reasonable

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We notice that the assessee is a private religious trust which e filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 28.07.2011 showing total income at Rs.18,83,302/- and for AY 2013-14 on 27.07.2013 showing total income at Rs.18,94,270/-. The said return of income was processed by ACIT vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act for the AYs. 2011-12 and 2013-14 dated 30.03.2013 and 30.03.2015 and the total income computed at Rs.18,83,302/- and 18,94,270/- respectively. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has issued several notices as is appearing in his order at page 3 to 4 wherein he has given seven opportunities but neither any compliance received nor any adjournment letter was filed on behalf of the assessee. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals of the assessee ex parte following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (118 ITR 461). Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Taking into account the factual matrix of the case, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and explanations and documents furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to be diligent and not to seek adjournment unless warranted by compelling reasons for expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →