KAMALESH MAITY vs. ITO, WD-27(2), HALDIA, HALDIA

ITA 1251/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 December 2016AY 2010-20112 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to appear due to unavoidable problems. The assessee's counsel requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata dated 05.01.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-2, Haldia u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 26.03.2013 for assessment year 2010-11.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →