ADHYAM BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. WARD 9(1) (NFAC), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2183/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 March 2025AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had been non-responsive before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before the Tribunal, and in the interest of natural justice, it was appropriate to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case and produce evidence. Therefore, the issues in the appeal were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Tribunal directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Department within sixty days from the date of the order. The receipt of this cost was to be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. The Tribunal further stipulated that should the assessee fail to pay the cost within the prescribed period, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes subject to these directions. No specific finding was given on the grounds of appeal, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Adhyam Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal challenges an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT. The revenue was represented by Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. The ITAT noted that the assessee had also not represented its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee pertain to the validity of reassessment proceedings, jurisdiction, limitation, and an addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal given the assessee's non-appearance and non-responsiveness. The assessee's grounds of appeal raised the following questions: 1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer was ex-parte and liable to be set aside for violating principles of natural justice (mixed law and fact). 2. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 was null and void for violating CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 (question of law). 3. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 was null and void for violating CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29 March 2022 (question of law). 4. Whether the JAO/ITO Ward 9(1) Kolkata erred in assuming jurisdiction while passing the order under Section 148A(d), as the assessee was subject to jurisdiction at Delhi, rendering the order null and void ab initio (mixed law and fact). 5. Whether the reassessment proceeding initiated under Section 148 was barred by limitation under Section 149 (question of law). 6. Whether the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- under Section 69A, given that the assessee had supporting documents which could have been produced with a reasonable opportunity (mixed law and fact). The assessee argued that the orders were bad in law and opposed to natural justice, and that notices and proceedings were void due to violations of CBDT circulars, notifications, jurisdictional issues, and limitation. The revenue's contentions were not recorded as no representative appeared for the assessee, but the Sr. DR was present.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 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/250/2024-25/1068020969(1) dated 27.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2014-15.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not represented its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the grounds of appeal before us, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Adhyam Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.., AY: 2014-15 “1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in passing the order in the manner he did, on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Assessing Officer is opposed to law and the principle of natural justice, and thus the impugned ex-parte order is liable to be set aside.

2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the 148 notice issued on 28.07.2022 is null and void as the same is in violation of CBDT circular no 19/2019.

3.

That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the notice issued under section 148 is null and void as the same is in violation of CBDT notification no 18/2022 dated 29 March 2022.

4.

That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the JAO/ITO ward 9(1) Kolkata has erred in assuming the jurisdiction while passing the order under section 148A(d), whereas all the relevant documents placed on record show that the appellant was subject to jurisdiction at Delhi. Thus, the order passed under section 148A(d) for initiation of the reassessment proceeding is null and void ab initio.

5. That the Ld. Assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 was barred by limitation under section 149.

6.

That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the claim of the Appellant and ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act, which is bad in law since the Appellant has all the supporting documents that could have been produced had there been a reasonable opportunity provided to the Appellant.

7.

That the Appellant carves leaves to add, alter amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal

before or at the time of hearing.”

4. It is noticed that the assessee has also been non-responsive before the Tribunal. Admittedly, facts raised before us for deciding the legal issues. This being so, and so as to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case and produce evidence the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication as the assessee has been non-responsive before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interests of natural justice, we are of the view that 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.25,000/- to the Department under challan 500 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 cost of Rs. 25,000/-

5.

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →