EMC BCPL JOINT VENTURE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA

PDF

ITA 2094/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 March 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No.: 2094/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 | EMC BCPL Joint Venture | Vs. | Income Tax Officer, Ward- 44(2), Kolkata | |---|---|---| | (Appellant) | | (Respondent) | | PAN: AAEFE3727G | | | Appearances: Assessee represented by : Sunil Surana, AR. Department represented by : Yogesh Mehare, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : March 6th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : March 6th, 2025 ORDER PER BE3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

Facts

The assessee appealed an ex parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 1,04,11,138/- for payment to a contractor under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, for AY 2018-19. The assessee argued they were not given sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Held

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Direct Taxes Professionals' Association within 60 days. Failure to pay the cost will result in the CIT(A)'s order being confirmed.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order confirming a substantial addition without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and if the matter should be restored for de novo adjudication.

Sections Cited

250, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 11.03.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3)/143(3A)/143(3B) of the Act, dated 12.04.2021. I.T.A. No.: 2094/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 EMC BCPL Joint Venture.

At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,04,11,138/- relating to payment to contractor u/s 37(1) of the Act. 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.

The assessee, despite being provided sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), did not present himself in the appellate proceedings and therefore, cannot be the principles of natural justice, we are of the view, 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) subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Direct Taxes Professionals’ Association within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Ld. CIT(A). Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 10,000/- 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 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th March, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 06.03.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 2094/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 EMC BCPL Joint Venture. Copy of the order forwarded to: