GLAMOUR MERCHANDISE LLP,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 15(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1197/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 March 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A), decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,96,41,270/- on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) order was passed without proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte against the assessee should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication, and the issue of unexplained cash credit under section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.03.2025Pronounced: 24.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : 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/250/2023-24/1063396951(1) dated 26.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2011-12.

2.

Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Chandan Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted vide first ground of appeal that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order confirming the addition of Rs.1,96,41,270/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the Glamour Merchandise LLP, AY: 2011-12 amount credited in the bank account of the assessee to be unexplained cash credit in terms of section 68 of the Act. Another issue in this appeal is in respect of reopening of assessment. Hence, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to his file for adjudication afresh. Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.

4. Since the assessee despite being provided with sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) did not present itself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, we are of the view, however, that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) 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.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →