GANPATI INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIE. 4(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 308/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 April 2024AY 2010-11Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no proper notice was served on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed that proper notice was not served due to an incorrect email address being used by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when proper notice was not served on the assessee, leading to an ex-parte decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Hearing: 30.04.2024Pronounced: 30.04.2024

ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

1.

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’].

2.

At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and no proper notice was served upon the assessee. The ld. AR in order to substantiate its claim stated that e-mail id provided by the assessee in Form No. 35 is sanjay@jekay.com. However, the ld. CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee in another wrong e-mail stating as jekaygroupit@gmail.com and due to this no proper notice was served upon the assessee and the matter was heard ex-parte against the assessee. He, therefore, prayed before bench since assessee did not get any opportunity to file sufficient documents/papers at the time of hearing before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, interest of justice matter may be remand back to ld. CIT(A) with the direction to heard the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Ganpati Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR did not raise any objection to such prayer made by the assessee. We after considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that no notice was served on the assessee. Therefore, it is necessary to remand back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →