FLUX OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 12(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2083/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 August 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, finding that the assessee likely did not receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ITAT noted that the CIT(Appeals) order was ex-parte and lacked merit-based discussion.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- This appeal at the instance of assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata dated 29.08.2017, which is arising out of the order under section 144 of the Act on 25.03.2014 framed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

2.

At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is ex-parte and the assessee could not get reasonable opportunity to plead before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority and, therefore, Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Flux Overseas Pvt. Limited requested for restoring the issue raised in the instant appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

3.

Ld. D.R. has raised no objection if the issues raised in the instant appeal are restored to the ld. CIT(Appeals).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed before us. The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal of which Ground No. 1 states that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Grounds No. 2 & 3 are challenging the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act at Rs.4,03,65,000/-.

5.

On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the impugned order is ex-parte. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed anything on merits of the case except giving general remark. Prima facie, it seems that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity of being heard. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties restore the issues raised on merit to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after considering the submissions of the assessee and pass a speaking order. The assessee is also directed not to take any adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on August 11, 2022.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Manish Borad) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 11th day of August, 2022 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Flux Overseas Pvt. Limited Copies to : (1) Flux Overseas Pvt. Limited, C/o. N.S.A. & Co., P-17, New CIT Road, 1st Floor, Room No. 7, Near Central Metro, Kolkata-700073

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan , P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata,

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →