JYOTI TEXTILES,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE-48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed of the appeal ex parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Jyoti Textiles, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made several additions, including undervaluation of closing stock and disallowance of trading discount. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals), but the appeal was dismissed ex parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) violated the principles of natural justice by disposing of the appeal ex parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, Kolkata dated 22.10.2014 passed ex parte.
The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of trading in cloth. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 23.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.3,96,740/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 22.11.2012, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.22,67,410/- after making the following additions:- (i) Undervaluation of closing stock.............Rs. 4,91,513/-; (ii) Disallowance of trading discount..........Rs. 3,07,370/-; ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 3
(iii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)...................Rs.10,56,783/-; (iv) Discrepancies in accounts......................Rs. 15,009/-.
The Assessing Officer also did not entertain the fresh claim made by the assessee for exclusion of income of Rs.3,84,105/- on account of trade discount as the same was already assessed to tax in the income of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 on the ground that such fresh claim was not made by the assesese by filing a revised return.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings, there was no response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assessee on four different dates. He, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex parte and dismissed the same by observing that there was no reason or basis for him to interfere with the order of the Assessing Officer making various additions to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that none of the four notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing was received by the assessee. He has also filed an affidavit of the assessee in support of this contention and keeping in view the same, I find that the appeal of the assessee has been disposed of by the ld. CIT(Appeals) by his impugned order passed ex parte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and there is a violation of principle of natural justice. I, therefore, set aside the said order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assesese afresh on merit after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the ld. counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 3 of 3 before me, the assessee shall pursue the matter with the ld. CIT(Appeals) and extend all possible cooperation to the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to dispose of its appeal expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on July 20, 2016.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026