NITYADHARA DEALTRADE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 783/KOL/2023Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 January 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the dates for submissions fell within the COVID period, and thus, the assessee deserved a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. The assessee contended that the notices were issued during the COVID period when their office was not operational.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, especially when the non-compliance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SRI RAJESH KUMAR & SONJOY SARMA

order

: January 5th, 2024 ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 19.06.2023 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13.

I.T.A. No.: 783/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nityadhara Dealtrade Private Limited.

2.

The only issue raised in ground no. 2 is against the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A) without considering the merit of the case.

3.

The facts in brief are that the NFAC has issued notices fixing the dates for compliance on 25.01.2021, 01.03.2021, 25.08.2021, 13.10.2021 & 12.05.2022 which were not responded and replied by the assessee. Finally, ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends before us that the dates given for replying to various notices fall within the COVID period when the assessee as well as the Counsel’s office was not in operation and therefore, the notices could not be replied. We observe from the records that the dates for making submissions before the faceless appellate authority were falling within the COVID period and therefore, the case of the assessee needs to be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) so that the appeal could be decided after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we restore this appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →