Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & DR. MANISH BORAD
order
: September 18th, 2023 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
The captioned appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Years (in short ‘AY’) 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 are directed against separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). .: 512, 513 & 514/KOL/2023 AYs: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jawala Steel Ltd.
When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Adv. was appearing but he sought adjournment and the case was fixed for hearing on 3rd August, 2023 but today there is no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. We therefore, decide to adjudicate the appeals on the basis of the records available and the submissions of ld. D/R. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds:
AY 2008-09: “1) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the case by issue of notice u/s 148 and the assessment order dated 27.11.2015 passed by DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kolkata is bad in law, without proper jurisdiction and therefore void ab-initio. 2) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 3) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified, unwarranted and therefore untenable in law and same is liable to be deleted in full. 4) We may add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” AY 2009-10: “1) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, reopening of the case by issue of notice u/s 148 and the assessment order dated 27.11.2015 passed by DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kolkata is bad in law, without proper jurisdiction and therefore void ab-initio. 2) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was wrong in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. .: 512, 513 & 514/KOL/2023 AYs: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jawala Steel Ltd. 3) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified, unwarranted and therefore untenable in law and same is liable to be deleted in full. 4) We may add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” AY 2013-14: “For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals)-5, Kolkata was grossly erred in dismissing the appeal without speaking order dealing each of the grounds of appeal raised in the appeal. 2) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, action of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata was grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in summary manner. 3) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-5, dated 03.10.2019 be set-aside and Ld. CIT(Appeals) be directed to pass fresh order after giving opportunity to the appellant. 4) We may add, alter amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing”
4. Ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities.
5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We notice that the assessee which is a limited company has been filing regular return of income for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2013-14. Thereafter, assessment for AY 2008- 09 & AY 2009-10 have been reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act but further, on account of non-appearance of the assessee the assessments have been framed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.11.2015 & 27.11.2015 respectively. So far as AY 2013-14 is concerned, after the return being filed on 27.09.2013 the case was selected for scrutiny by serving of valid