What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance, attributing it to an address change. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee claimed this was due to an inadvertent change of address and failure to inform the CIT(A)'s office.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the CIT(A) was justified, considering the assessee's explanation for non-compliance.

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Howrah vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2016

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

Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap

For Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR

Hearing: 04.04.2016Pronounced: 22.04.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 12.05.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed before him ex parte.

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of pipe fittings and trading of iron and steel. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 20.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.2,08,440/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 22.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs.10,02,030/-, after making various additions. Against the said order of the AO, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the same vide his appellate order dated 12.05.2015 passed ex parte as there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal.

Ashok Kr. Agarwal Assessment Year: 2007-08 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As clearly mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, all the notices sent to the assessee were returned back by the postal authorities unserved with the remark “insufficient address”. In this regard, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a change in the address of the assessee after filing the appeal with the ld. CIT(A) and since there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee to intimate the said change to the Office of the ld. CIT(A), notices could not be served on the assessee which resulted in non-appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Since this averments made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are duly supported by the affidavit filed by the assessee affirming the relevant facts on oath, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause which prevented the assessee from complying with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) fixing his appeal for hearing from time to time. I therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving one more opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall not seek any adjournment and shall extend full cooperation to the ld. CIT(A) to enable him to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd April, 2016.

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-46(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments