HAP GARMENTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR.11(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 404/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 March 2025AY 2011-12Bench: us. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that all relevant documents are in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after this agency raided them. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that it was the duty of the assessee to obtain the copies from the CBI and provide the same before the Ld. AO. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case. The AO was also directed to use his office to obtain relevant documents from the CBI if the assessee is unable to produce them.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because the assessee failed to produce documents, stating they were seized by the CBI, and held it was the assessee's duty to retrieve them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal due to non-production of documents which the assessee claimed were seized by the CBI, and if the Assessing Officer should assist in obtaining such documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Date of concluding the hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 27.03.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059377385(1) dated 04.01.2024, passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2011-12.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The matter is disposed of on the basis of Hap Garments (P) Ltd. submissions on behalf of the Revenue and after perusal of documents before us. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), shows that before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has submitted that all relevant documents are in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after this agency raided them. The Ld. CIT(A) has stated that it was the duty of the assessee to obtain the copies from the CBI and provide the same before the Ld. AO. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

We have considered the Ld. DR’s submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the facts are that the documents in relation to which the Ld. AO has made the addition has been claimed by the assessee to be in possession of the CBI. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice so as to provide the assessee adequate opportunity to present its case, the issues are restored back to the Ld. AO for re- adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In the event the assessee is unable to produce the relevant documents even after attempts the Ld. AO may also use his office to obtain the relevant documents from the office of the CBI.

5.

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

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →