PRASANNA ESTATES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 905/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 January 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a lapse on the part of the AR should not prevent the assessee from pleading its case. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's authorized representative changed their address, and notices from the CIT(A) were not received. This led to the assessee being unaware of the hearing dates and an ex-parte order being passed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee should be set aside to allow for a hearing on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM ]

Hearing: 30.12.2016Pronounced: 06.01.2017

ORDER

Per A. T. Varkey, JM

1.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), 19, Kolkata dt. 01.02.2016 for the AY 2008-09.

2. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee took our attention to the fact that the impugned assessment order is an ex-parte order and the assessee was not in receipt of the notices of hearing because of change in address and took out attention to the fact that the authorized AR’s address changed from 2, Rajkumar Bose Lane Kolkata-700013 to 7, Paikpara Row, Kolkata-700037. It was brought to our knowledge that the notices which were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to 2, Rajkumar Bose Lane Kolkata-700013 were redirected by the ex-landlord. So, the AR was not in the know-how of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and hence could not attend the hearing. Therefore, he prayed that the ex-parte order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) and assessee be given an opportunity to plead its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

We have heard both the parties and have perused the records. We find that the impugned order is an ex-parte order. We take note that the appeal was fixed on 08.05.2015, 29.12.2015 and 18.01.2016. When the Ld. CIT(A) found that no one was representing the assessee in the Appellate proceedings he passed the ex-parte order dismissing the same. The case of the assessee is that the AR of the assessee had changed the address from 2, Rajkumar Bose Lane Kolkata-700013 to 7, Paikpara Row, Kolkata-700037 and since the notices of hearing from Ld. CIT(A) have not been redirected by the ex-landlord, the AR was not aware of the date of hearing fixed by the Ld. CIT(A), which in turn prompted the Ld. CIT(A) to pass the ex-parte order. The fervent plea of the Ld. AR is that for the lapse which has happened on part of the AR should not come in the way of justice to the assessee and the assessee should be given an opportunity to plead its case before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the appeal could be heard on merit and order passed. We find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that for the lapse on the part of the Ld. AR to intimate the change in address to the office of the Ld. CIT(A) has subsequently resulted in his non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) and which in turn resulted in the appeal being decided ex-parte.

4.

For the interest of justice we set aside the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits after hearing the assessee. 5. In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 06.01.2017

Sd/- Sd/- [Dr. A.L. Saini] [A. T. Varkey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 06 /01/2017 {SC SPS} 2 Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.

Prasanna Estates (P) Ltd., 4A, Nasiruddin Road, Kolkata-700017.

2.

Office of the Ld. ITO, Wd-7(2), Chowringhee Kolkata-700069. 3. CIT(A)-19 Kolkata. 4. CIT-3 Kolkata. 5. CIT (DR) Kolkata Benches.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →