M/S. KULDEEP PRATAP DEO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 146/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 December 2018AY 1998-994 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. To render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance on multiple hearing dates. The assessee claimed the non-appearance was due to serious illness and requested another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 04/12Pronounced: 05/12

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No146/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 1998-1999

M/s Kuldeep Pratap De, Vs. ITO Ward 2(1), C.O. N. Mohanty382, Bhoi Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAGFK 7804 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Date of Hearing : 04/12/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05/12/ 2018

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),2, Bhubaneswar dated

2.12.2016 for the assessment year 1998-1999.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. For that the orders of the Forums below are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

For that the Books of Accounts of the appellant was impounded U/s. 131 (6) of the I.T.Act'61 and was lying under the custody of the Department since 31.03.2001 and the same were released only on 11.12.2006. Without affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain

P a g e 1 | 4

ITA No 146/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 19 98- 199 9

his case the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2006 in order to save the limitation as per Board's Circular, hence the matter is liable to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

3.

For that the LAO had taken a lot of pain to gather information from the State Excise Authority as well as the Dealers with whom the appellant was dealing with but failed to confront the same and allow sufficient time to explain the discrepancies, hence the matter is liable to be set aside.

4.

For that the purchase and sell suppression as calculated by the LAO and determination of the alleged Net Profit figure at Rs.2,59,990.00 is nothing but based on presumptions and surmises and the calculation is of his own method and lacks with clarity, hence the determination of net profit is baseless and liable to be deleted.

5.

For that further addition of Rs. 1,79,270.00 under the head "income from other sources" is also baseless in view of the findings of the LAO. Assuming but not admitting the fact that there is purchase and sell suppression, the question of peak investment at Rs. 1,79,270.00 does not arise. There being no basis of such addition the same is liable to be deleted in toto.

6.

For that the present LAO has just endorsed the views of the previous Assessing Officer without application of his judicial mind, hence the assessment order passed is liable to be set aside.

7.

For that the Learned CIT(A) also passed the order exparte determining Gross Sales at Rs.1,04,75,889/- and calculated G.P @ 3.71% without any basis and thus allowed relief of Rs.3,710/-, hence the order passed without application of mind is liable to be set-aside.

8.

For that the determination of Total Income by the Learned A.O. at Rs.2,27.490.00 is baseless, arbitrary, unjust and excessive, hence the returned income of the appellant is liable to be accepted.”

3.

Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)

has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee failed to

P a g e 2 | 4

ITA No 146/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 19 98- 199 9

appear on the dates fixed for hearing. He submitted that due to

serious illness, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A).

Therefore, he prayed that one more last opportunity should be

granted to the assessee to present his case before the CIT(A).

4.

Ld D.R. vehemently opposed to the granting of another

opportunity to the assessee before the CIT(A).

5.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the

orders of lower authorities, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed

the appeals of the assessee as the assessee failed to appear

before him on 9.2.2016, 4.4.2016, 27.6.016, 2.8.2016 and

8.11.2016. Before us, ld A.R. submitted that due to serious illness

of the assessee, there was non-appearance before the CIT(A) on

the dates of hearing. He submitted that if one more opportunity is

given to the assessee, he undertakes to appear before the CIT(A)

for disposal of the assessee. Therefore, in order to render

substantial justice to the assessee, we set aside the order of the

CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication of

the appeal of the assessee afresh after allowing reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

P a g e 3 | 4

ITA No 146/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 19 98- 199 9

Order pronounced on 5 /12/2018. Sd/ sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 05/12/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s Kuldeep Pratap De, C.O. N. Mohanty382, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar 2. ITO Ward 2(1), The Respondent. Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar By order 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. Sr. Pvt. Secretary, //True Copy// ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 4 | 4

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →