Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed
Appearances by: Shri Surajit Paul (Junior Advocate), for the assessee Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for the Department Date of concluding the hearing : December 08, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : December 15, 2016
O R D E R Per Shri A.T. Varkey, J.M.:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 24.07.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09.
At the outset itself the ld. A.R. of the assessee took our attention to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) pointing out that it was an ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A). It was pointed out by the ld. A.R. that the matter was only fixed twice as evident from page 2 of the impugned order, i.e. on 22.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 and since the assesee did not receive the notice of hearing, the ld. A.R. could not appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. We take note that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has fixed the matter on 22.05.2014 and 26.06.2014 and since none appeared before him, he passed the ex- parte order on 24.07.2014. According to the ld. A.R., the notice for hearing on 26.06.2014 was misplaced in his office and there was no fault of the assessee and, ./2014 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 2 therefore, the assessee could not be penalized for misplacement of notice at the office of the ld. A.R. We agree with the contention of the ld. A.R. and in the interest of justice and fairness, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on December 15, 2016.