What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by passing ex-parte orders without analysis and reasons. The impugned orders were set aside.

The assessee's appeals were filed late, but the delay was condoned. The primary grievance was that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte, non-speaking orders without adjudicating the assessee's points.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a valid order by failing to adjudicate the assessee's grounds and by passing an ex-parte, non-speaking order.

Bengal Intelligent Parks Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Shri Saurabh Gupta, FCA

Hearing: 05/02/2024Pronounced: 19/02/2024

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1061/Kol/2023

I.T.A. No. 1062/Kol/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These present appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”] dt. 12/07/2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and dt. 02/08/2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14 respectively; passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

The registry has informed that both these appeals are time barred by 25 days and petition for condonation of delay has been filed and we find that the delay was on account of pre-occupation of the Authorized Representative for the preparation and finalization of Tax Audits which were due to be filed by 30th September, 2023. Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1062/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bengal Intelligent Parks Pvt. Ltd. 2 Considering the same and in the larger interest of justice delay is condoned and both these appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that though the assessee has taken several grounds of appeal

, but his preliminary grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order which is non-speaking and the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the points raised by the assessee.

4. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte orders dismissing the appeals of the assessee for want of appearance on behalf of the assessee. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates the ld. CIT(A) to state the point in dispute, and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) would indicate that it is not in consonance with mandate given in the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not made any analysis of facts available on record, including the assessment records and has passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable; it deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore these appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Needless to say, the assessee shall co-operate till the disposal of these appeals.

BENGAL INTELLIGENT PARKS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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