SURAJ INTERNATIONAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2518/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.4. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. A.R pra4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, confirming the AO's order without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return for AY 2012-13, which was selected for scrutiny, and the AO made several additions to the income. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance without considering the merits, and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 50C,Section 14A,Section 143(3),Section 288A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 21.10.2024 for AY 2012-13.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Suraj International 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. 29,18,150/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and response to the same, the Ld. A.R of the assessee submits the details and evidence. The AO after considering the submission made by the AR computed the income of the assessee as under:

Total income as per return Rs. 29,18,150/- Add: i) Addition u/s 50C Rs. 28,10,344/- ii) Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D Rs. 7,92,190/ iii) Disallowances of interest on TDS and Insurance

Policy Rs. 4,37,667/- iv) Disallowances of depreciation on motor car Rs. 1,57,949/- v) Addition due to undisclosed contractual receipt Rs. 5,64,000/- Rs. 47,62,150/-

Gross Total income Rs. 76,80,300/- Less: Carry forward business loss of AY 2011-12

[As per order u/s 143(3) dated 21.02.2014 for AY 2011-12] Rs. 2,41,870/- Total assessed income Rs. 74,38,430/-

R/o u/s 288A Rs. 74,38,430/-

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Suraj International 4. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. A.R prayed for an opportunity for place its case before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Contrary to that the ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting back the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO when there was non-compliance on behalf of the assessee. There was no discussion on the merit of the case.

7.

Keeping in view the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the proceedings. The order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 26th May, 2025

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi /संजय अव�थी) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 26th May, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Suraj International, 5, Amratolla Street, Burabazar, Kolkata- 700001 2. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-34, Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →