Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs.3,24,65,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs.1,06,393/- for disallowance of expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the I.T. Bar Association within 60 days.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and whether the case should be restored for a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 68, 14A, Rule 8D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Yogesh Mehare, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025 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)-13, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. 322/CIT(A)-13/Wd.44(2)/Kol/2015-16 dated 16.01.2019 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.
Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Yogesh Mehara, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It is a recalled matter. In this case the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.3,24,65,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit being share capital and premium u/s. 68 of the M/s. Everlike Mercandise Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13 Act. And the second addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.1,06,393/- made on account of disallowance of expenses u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed. We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that it was passed ex parte without going into the merits of the case since no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite four opportunities being granted. Keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, however, we are of the view that assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the I.T. Bar Association (ITBA) within sixty days from the date of this order and the receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 25,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.