MR PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-27(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1252/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 December 2016AY 2010-20112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the file to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in the interest of justice and fair play.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was called for hearing, but no one appeared for the assessee, nor was an adjournment application received. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee.

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 “C” KOLKATA

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

आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata dated 10.03.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-27(4), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 25.03.2013 for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

At the outset, it was observed that none appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing, nor any adjournment application was received. At the very outset, though, it was observed by the Bench that the issue under reference is the same as that considered and decided by us in the case of Kamalesh Maity vs. ITO Ward-27(2) Haldia (in dated 07.12.2016) heard today. In view of this identity of subject-matter of appeal the hearing in the appeal was proceeded with.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →