RIDHI SIDHI VINCOM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 630/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 February 2023AY 2008-20093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents for a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 8 days. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity to file submissions and documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Hearing: 15.02.2023Pronounced: 17.02.2023

ORDER

Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

1.

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the order dated 02.09.2022 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:

“i. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte. ii. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. AO erred in making addition of a sum of Rs. 3,33,00,000/- for the share capital along with premium raised by the assessee in terms of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition is unjustified and need be deleted. iii. That the assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

2.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 8 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.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get any opportunity to file relevant documents and submissions before ld. CIT(A), one more opportunity should be given and the issues raised in the instant appeal may be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A). Ld. D/R was fair enough not to oppose such prayer made by the ld. AR of the assessee.

4.

We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, are of the considered view that since the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte and no discussion has been made on the merits of the case, we, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order and remit it back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues raised before us by way of a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to remain vigilant in receiving the notices of hearing of the ld. CIT(A) and should not request for any further adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and should file all necessary documents so as to facilitate ld. CIT(A) for passing the speaking order. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given proper opportunity of being heard.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →