M/s. Techno Services , Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 63(3), , Kolkata

ITA 1986/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2984 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAUL CIT LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 201

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO . 1986/KOL/2018 AY 2013 - 14 M/S. TECHNO SERVICES IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, KOLKATA [ BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY , AM AND S MT. MADHUMITA ROY , JM ] I.T.A. NO. 1986/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 3 - 14 M/S. TECHNO SERVICES PAN: AAFFT300IR VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 63(3), KOLKATA APP ELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) 1 8 - 11 - 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 - 11 - 2020 FOR THE APPELLANT NONE (ADJOURNMENT ADJ. NOT FILED) FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SU PRIYO PAUL, ADDL. CIT, LD.DR ORDER PER SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JM THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27 - 06 - 2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 19 , KOLKATA ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31 - 03 - 2016 PASSED BY THE ITO (THE AO) , WD - 63(3), KOL U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR THE A SSESSMENT Y EAR S 201 3 - 14 . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER FROM THE RECORDS, IT APPEARS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27 - 06 - 2018 WAS PASSED EX PARTE. THE LD. CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) DECIDED THE MATTER EX PARTE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.AO SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT . IT, THEREFOR E, APPEARS ADMITTEDLY THAT FOR SOME REASONS OF THE OTHER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DULY PRESENTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE FIND IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE S AME AFRESH UPON GIVING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT AND UPON CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, WHICH THE APPELLANT MAY CHOOSE TO FILE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. WE 2 ITA NO . 1986/KOL/2018 AY 2013 - 14 M/S. TECHNO SERVICES ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AP PELLANT WOULD CO - OPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. NO ORDER AS TO COST. 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 SD/ - SD/ - ( J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ( MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2020 **PP (SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. RESPECTIVE APPELLANT / ASSESSEE: M/S. TECHNO SER VICES, GD - 66, SALT LAKE SECTOR - III, KOLKATA - 106. 2 RESPONDENT / REVENUE: THE I.T.O., WARD 63(3). KOLKATA 3. 4. 5. CIT(A), CIT - , DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGIST RAR