Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shree Liladhar Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata Now merged with ITO, Ward- 4A, Council House Street, 1st 5(1), Kolkata Vs. Floor, MMS Chambers, Kolkata- 700001. PAN: AAPCS 8336 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT Date of Hearing : 30.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:
This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. CIT(A)’]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in upholding the order passed by the Ld. ITO Ward -10(1), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short "Act") in the case of the appellant, without considering that the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and against the provisions of law.
2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to consider that the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in adding back u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, the amount of Rs. 5,02,00,000/ - being the Share Capital and Securities Premium.
2 Shree Liladhar Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2012-13 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider that the Ld. AO erred in adding interest under section 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend/modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or before the hearing of appeal.”
2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 98 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee. We after perusing the petition for condonation are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and hence delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.
Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal contesting various disallowances and addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. AR at the outset submitted the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assesses and on perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A), we find that fair opportunities were indeed given to the assessee for representation which was not complied by the assessee. The ld. AR before us prayed for one more opportunity before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR also assured that he will not take any adjournment before the ld. CIT(A) and would cooperate in appeal. We find that ex-parte order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A). This is a fit case for remanding the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) to give more effective opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to cooperate with expeditious disposal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) by not seeking any adjournment except due to the exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. In view of the above discussion, the various grounds raised by the assessee on merits are left open and remand back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.