9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1346 - AT - Income TaxDenial of natural justice - no proper opportunity was given to the assessee to effectively plead its case before the First Appellate Authority - HELD THAT - When the assessee received notice for hearing of AY 2011-12, the Ld. AR while appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was of the bona fide belief that AY 2009-10 would be adjudicated first and thereafter only AY 2011-12 would be adjudicated. Therefore, at that time he was not prepared to argue the brief entrusted to him so, we are of the opinion that no proper opportunity was given to the Ld. AR of the assessee to effectively plead its case before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh. Therefore, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Appeal arising from common order of CIT(A) for AYs 2009-10 and 2011-12; Change in jurisdiction from CIT(A)-12 to CIT(A)-4; Violation of natural justice by CIT(A); Request for remand to CIT(A) for effective adjudication. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata stemmed from a common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. Initially, the jurisdiction was with CIT(A)-12 for AY 2009-10, but it changed to CIT(A)-4. The appellant highlighted that the AO did not provide a remand report for AY 2009-10, leading to pending adjudication. During the hearing for AY 2011-12, the appellant's representative pointed out the pending appeal for AY 2009-10, but the CIT(A) passed orders for both years without effective hearing, which was deemed a violation of natural justice. The Appellate Tribunal noted the appellant's grievance regarding the lack of effective hearing before the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 due to the change in jurisdiction and the absence of a remand report. It was observed that the appellant's representative believed AY 2009-10 would be adjudicated first, leading to unpreparedness during the hearing for AY 2011-12. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the First Appellate Authority, indicating a procedural flaw. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. In conclusion, both appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and effective adjudication before the First Appellate Authority.
|
