M/S. EASTERN POLYPACK PVT.LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-3(1), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1311/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 February 2024AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the duty under Section 250(6) to pass a speaking order considering the submissions. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a proper disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider written submissions and supporting documents filed by them. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee had not pursued the appeal despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions and supporting documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.01.2024Pronounced: 07.02.2024

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, vide order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1058167612(1) dated 23.11.2023 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata u/s.147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 22.02.2016 for AY 2008-09.

2.

Though assessee has raised as many as seven grounds of appeal

but in ground no.1 assessee has contested that Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the written submission filed by the assessee along with supporting documents. Thus, according to Ld. Counsel, the dismissal of appeal of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. According to Ld. CIT(A), as noted by him in para 3, Eastern Polypack Pvt. Ltd. AY 2008-09 assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several opportunities. He thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee against which it is before the Tribunal.

3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee emphasizing on ground no. 1, referred to page 23 of the paper book which is the e-proceeding response acknowledgement in respect of written submissions along with supporting documents filed and uploaded by the assessee against the notice of hearing dated 01.11.2023 issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee had furnished its written submissions along with annexure on 23.11.2023, which has not been considered while disposing the appeal of the assessee by ld. CIT(A). Copy of written submission furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) as acknowledged in the e-proceeding response acknowledgment is also placed in the paper book from page nos. 25 to 61. The said written submission is a detailed one, elaborating various aspects of grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3.1. Section 250(6) cast a duty on Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. In the present case before us, even though assessee has made its submissions along with supporting documents which is duly acknowledged by the system generated e-proceeding response acknowledgment placed on record, compliance has not been met while disposing of the appeal by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee at the first appellate stage by passing a speaking order. Needless to say that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal. Accordingly, ground no. 1 taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →