TEJINDER SINGH WALIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-30, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1337/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 February 2024AY 2014-15Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order after considering their submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) without the assessee being able to file submissions. The assessee claimed they did not receive hearing notices, while the Revenue stated multiple notices were issued. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's claim that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and present their case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Hearing: 08.02.2024Pronounced: 09.02.2024

ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

1.

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’].

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and nothing has been dealt on merits except reiterating assessment order on the disallowances/additions made by the ld. AO. The assessee could not get any opportunity to file its submissions and other relevant details. Since none of the notices for hearing of the appeal was received by the assessee. Thus, the assessee referring to grounds of the appeal, it has prayed that grounds raised in the instant

Tejinder Singh Walia appeal may be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard.

3.

Per contra, ld. DR opposed the request made by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Since the ld. CIT(A) issued several consecutive notices to the assessee but assessee did not avail such opportunity given by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through grounds, the assessee has stated that ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the materials on record and passed the order ex-parte. On perusal of the impugned order, we noticed that the instant ground raised by the assessee has merit as in the impugned order, ld. CIT(A) merely reproduce grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and the decision part, finding has been given only reiterating the assessment order passed by the ld. AO, as the assessee in the instant case could not able to file necessary details as well as submissions at the time of hearing before the ld. CIT(A). Under these given facts and circumstances, we restore the matter in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh to pass a speaking order after considering the submission made by the assessee for which reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided. The assessee also directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take any further adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to Tejinder Singh Walia the assessee, there is no compliance before the ld. CIT(A), then the ld. CIT(A) can proceed to pass the order in accordance with law.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →