What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that there was no material on record to confirm that the notices were received by the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte as the assessee claimed not to have received notices and thus failed to present submissions. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, arguing for a fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Whether the assessee received proper notices for the proceedings before the CIT(A).

Anil Kumar Mohanka vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

order

: May 28th, 2024 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, 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)- 4, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 08.01.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11.11.2019.

Before entering into the merit of the case it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that, the impugned order is ex-parte, assessee failed to get sufficient opportunity to give the submissions and file relevant documents in support of its grounds raised

before ld. CIT(A) as he has not I.T.A. No.: 314/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Mohanka. been served any notices as alleged in the CIT(A) order. Prayer was made to restore all the issues in the instant appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3. Ld. D/R was fair enough in not raising any objection if the issues raised in the instant appeal is restored to ld. CIT(A).

4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee before ld. CIT(A) and the impugned order was passed ex-parte. There is nothing in the record /order that whether notices have been served to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) only reveals thus— S. Date of issue Date of Remarks No. of fixing the notice/letter case for hearing 1. 04.01.2021 19.01.2021 Notice was sent to appellant through ITBA portal bearing DIN ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/2020- 21/1029447332(1). No reply has been received from the appellant till date. 2. 02.11.2021 17.11.2021 Notice was sent to appellant through ITBA portal bearing DIN ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/ 2021- 22/1036708204(1). No reply has been received from the appellant till date. 3. 26.12.2023 03.01.2024 Notice was sent to appellant through ITBA portal bearing DIN ITBA/NFAC/F/APL_1/ 2023- 24/1059057843(1). The appellant has not filed any details/submissions nor filed any adjournment letter.

5. It is well settled law that order should be passed on merit. We do not find any material in the record that notices as alleged to be sent was received by the assessee.

6. We, therefore, in this view that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his submission and documents in support of their case before the CIT(A) by setting aside the ex-parte order, restore all the issues in the instant appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions as well as the relevant documents to be filed by the assessee on being provided adequate opportunity and to decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to remain Page 2 of 3 I.T.A. No.: 314/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Mohanka. vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered, in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 28.05.2024 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. Anil Kumar Mohanka, C/o Drug Centre 179, 1st Floor, H.B. Road Post, Asansol, West Bengal, 713301.

2. ITO, Ward-2(2), Asansol. 3. CIT(A)-4, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

ANIL KUMAR MOHANKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), ASANSOL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments