RAJESHWARI IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2069/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 February 2025AY 2013-2014Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while noting that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, decided to grant one more opportunity due to principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was an ex parte order. The Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 68 as unexplained income in the assessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the AO, subject to payment of costs, despite not appearing before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR
Hearing: 25.02.2025Pronounced: 25.02.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 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/250/2023-24/1067464896(1) dated 08.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14.

2.

Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The Assessing Officer made the additions u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained income in the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also an ex parte order.

At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside the orders of both the authorities below and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to de novo adjudicate the issue. Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.

4.

Since the assessee despite providing 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 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 IT Bar Association (ITBA) within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Ld. Assessing Officer. Should the assessee not pay the above mentioned 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.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →