Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed they were not granted proper opportunities by the CIT(A) and requested another chance to represent their case. The revenue contended that proper opportunities were given, but the assessee failed to produce required documents.
Held
The Tribunal noted that notices were issued but the assessee made no compliance. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity. However, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and whether costs should be imposed for non-compliance.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Onkar Agencies Private Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata 1st Floor, Room No.27A, 2B, Grant Lane, Bowbazar, Kolkata PAN No. :AAACO 9845 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Aman Kumar, AR रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058294333(1) for the assessment year 2010-2011.
Shri Aman Kumar, AR on behalf of the assessee. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was the submission that the assessee has not been granted proper opportunities by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it was prayed by the ld. AR that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A).
In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that proper opportunities were allowed and the assessee could not produce the documents as required by both the authorities below. It was submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deserve to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), at para 3.1 clearly shows that notices were issued to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), however, no compliance has been made by the assessee. Thus, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in this appeal to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta-700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.