M/S. S.J. FISCAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT arose from an ex parte order by the CIT(A) who had confirmed the disallowance of share trading losses. The assessee claimed they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order and confirming disallowances without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to represent their case.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM]
For the Appellant: Shri Shital Khemka, CA For the Respondent: N o n e ORDER This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-I, Kolkata, vide appeal No. 36/CIT(A)-I/W-3(4)/2014-15 dated 01.06.2016 for AY 2011-12 on the following grounds: “
I. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to represent the case and passing the order ex parte.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of share trading loss of Rs.12,97,250/-.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of share trading loss of Rs.8,80,000/-.”
2. None was present on behalf of the Revenue. The Ld. DR has sought for adjournment for each and every case that has been listed before me today by filing one letter mentioning the entire cause list in it in the “SMC” “A” Bench. The reason given is that the Ld. Sr. DR declined to receive files listed for hearing today from the Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, ITAT, Admn. as he was busy in some office work. As I am not convinced with such a reason and as I cannot allow the bench to collapse, I reject the application for adjournment and disposed of the matter ex parte qua the revenue.
3. I have perused the matter. There is a delay of 4 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the same, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.
4. I also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order as the assessee has not attended at the time of hearing before him. I am convinced that the assessee was 2 S.J.Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd..AY 2011-12 prevented by sufficient cause for appearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this is a fit case for setting aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20th April, 2017, take notice and thereafter cooperate in disposal of the same.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- (J. Sudhakar Reddy) Accountant Member
Dated : 31st January, 2017 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: APPELLANT – M/s. S. J. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd., HDIL, Kaledonia, 1. 8th floor, A, wing, Off Sahar Road, Opposite Vijay Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. Respondent –ITO, Ward-3(4), Kolkata. 2 The CIT(A), Kolkata 3. 4. ACIT , Kolkata. 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Harinder Singh Rawat vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026