MANGALAM DEALMARK PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 1013/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2013-14Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no response from the side 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 submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the assessee to be heard and further submitted that the AO has also passed assessment order in haste without giving proper opportun4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed a NIL return for AY 2013-14. Subsequently, information regarding high-value bank transactions led to the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, and the AO added Rs. 3,48,35,887 as unexplained money under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-response, which the assessee contended was due to lack of proper opportunity.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders in haste and ex-parte, without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting a proper hearing to the assessee.

Key Issues

The key issues were the denial of proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee by the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders, and the legality of an assessment order passed in haste without allowing sufficient time for response to a show cause notice.

Sections Cited

147, 148, 148A(b), 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

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 08.03.2024 for AY 2013-14.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Managalam Dealmark Pvt. Ltd.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income Nil. Later on, an information was received from the office of the DDIT, Unit-Kolkata about higher value transaction in various bank accounts. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. A show cause notice u/s 148A(b) was also issued on 01.06.2022 along with copy of information and material as available. The Ld. A.O after going over the submission made by the assessee added an amount of Rs. 3,48,35,887/- as an unexplained money and treated it the income of the assessee.

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 response from the side of the assessee.

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

The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the assessee to be heard and further submitted that the AO has also passed assessment order in haste without giving proper opportunity to the assessee i.e. apparent from the record that the AO has given two show cause notices dated 30.05.2023 that was received by the assessee on 31. 03.2023 asking to reply on 31.05.2023. The Ld. A.R further submits that the AO has not given any time to submit reply of show cause notice as the AO has passed an order on 31.05.2023 though the show cause notice alleged to be issued by the AO on 30.05.2023. The Ld. A.R prayed the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of AO for proper verification and fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.