SOUTHOPEN INFRANIRMAN CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), , KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submission. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return for AY 2018-19. The case was reopened under Section 147 as the AO believed income of Rs.28,00,000/- was escapement due to an accommodation entry. Notices were issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, and whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh hearing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Southopen Infranirman Consultants Pvt. Ltd.……………….……....Appellant 228A, Chittaranjan Avenue, W.B – 700006. [PAN: AARCS2287B] vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Smt. Swati Baid, FCA appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, ACIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : August 13, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : August 18, 2025 आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.04.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.60440/-. On information received that the assessee company had received accommodation entry of Rs.28,00,000/- routed through the bank account of M/s Strong Well Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. during the F.Y 2017-18. Later on, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 as to believe by the Assessing Officer that the said income of the had escaped assessment. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee to furnish necessary details to prove the source the deposit in the bank amount.
Southopen Infranirman Consultants Pvt. Ltd As the assessee made no compliance to the various notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.28,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credit.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order by simply upholding the order of the Assessing Officer by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the contention of the ld. AR is that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the case on merits, which is not justified, therefore, she prayed for one more opportunity may be granted.
On the other hand, the ld. DR stated that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and did not comply to the notices issued by the lower authorities, therefore, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed in limine.
We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that in the present case, since the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submission made by assessee, therefore, in the interests of justice, it is necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re- examine the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) as and when asked for without any fail and in case, the assessee fails to appear in remand proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) may pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of materials available on record.
Southopen Infranirman Consultants Pvt. Ltd 8. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 18TH August, 2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026