EEPC INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-(EXEMPTION)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 752/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 July 2016AY 2010-20112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the issue was covered by a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The Tribunal noted the ex parte nature of the order and the potential applicability of the High Court ruling.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard, and if the High Court's decision on a similar matter should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

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)-25. Kolkata dated 28.03.2016. Assessment was framed by ITO(Exemp.)-II, Kolkata u/s 143(3)/11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 22.03.2013 for assessment year 2010-11. Shri R.K.Patodi, L’d Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden, L’d Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

ITO No752/Kol/2016 A.Y.2010-11 EEPC India v. ITO(Exemp)-II Kol. Page 2 2. At the outset, it was observed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. However, L’d AR of the assessee before us submitted that the issue has already been covered in favour of assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Siliguri Regulate Market Committee (2014) 366 ITR 51 (Cal). Considering the facts of the case we are of the view that one more opportunity of hearing should be given to the assessee to substantiate its claim. So in the interest of justice and fair play the matter is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction that one more opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee to decide the issue afresh as per law. Needless to mention that assessee should co-operate at the appellate stage.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →