What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not being represented before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to the non-appearance of their representative. The assessee claimed the non-appearance was due to the illness of their director, supported by a medical certificate.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, especially when there was a valid reason for non-appearance.

M/S Shiva Loknath Rice Mill (P)… vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh

This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned CIT(A), Jalpaiguri in Appeal No. 30/MLD/CIT(A)/JAL/10-11 dated 21/11/2012 for the Asst Year 2008-09 against the order of assessment framed by the Learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an exparte order without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.

2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of books of accounts of the appellant as made by the A.O.

3. Without prejudice to the ground no.2, both the lower authorities ought to have made a reasonable estimate of the appellant's profits.

-C-AM 1 M/s. Shiva Loknath Rice Mill (P) Ltd

4. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.11 ,69,626/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged difference between the expenses debited to the P&L Alc. and recorded in the ledger Accounts

5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.ll,12,6501- made by the A.O. on account of electricity charges.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.

During the course of hearing before us, the ld.AR of the assessee stated that the ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte due to non appearance of ld. representative before him and pleaded for one more opportunity to be given for explaining the facts of the case with supporting documents/evidences before the ld. CIT(A). She also explained that due to illness of the director/ authorized signatory of the assessee company, no representative could be briefed to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A). In support of this, the Learned AR also filed medical certificate/discharge summary of its director, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Paul, issued by the Apollo Specialty Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery. In response to this the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without presence of the assessee’s representative. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue on merits by dismissing the grounds of assessee for want of evidences and by merely relying on the order of the ld.AO. We find from the medical certificate/ discharge summary of its director, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Paul issued by the Apollo Specialty Hospital, Department of Neurosurgery that the assessee has sufficient reasonable cause in not engaging/appointing an authorized representative for representation of the case before the ld.CIT(A). In these circumstances, we deem it fit and appropriate , in the interest of justice and fair play, -C-AM 2 M/s. Shiva Loknath Rice Mill (P) Ltd to set aside this issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication of all the grounds of the assessee afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the appellate proceeding by producing necessary evidences, if any, in support of its contention.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as stated above.

THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05 -02-2016

M/S SHIVA LOKNATH RICE MILL (P) LTD.,DAKSHIN DINAJPUR vs. D.C.I.T,CIR-MALDA, MALDA

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