M/S ADWITA FINVEST PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 117/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 June 2022AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and did not deal with the merits of the case. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late due to COVID-19 restrictions. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, resulting in an ex-parte order. The ITAT condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid without addressing the merits of the case, and whether the assessee was provided a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SRI MANISH BORAD & SRI SONJOY SARMA

order

: June 15th, 2022 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2013-14 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 07.08.2021 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2016.

I.T.A. No.: 117/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 M/s. Adwita Finvest Private Limited.

2.

Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 142 days. A perusal of the record shows that the delay is on account of COVID-19 restrictions. We, therefore, in view of the judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 find that the limitation period in filing appeal between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for calculating the limitation period in filing appeal under this period. Since the period of limitation falls during this period, the same deserves to be extended and we, therefore, condone the delay of 142 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

When the case was called for, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. In the past, the case had been fixed on 04.04.2022, 05.05.2022 and 24.05.2022 but none appeared on assessee’s behest. Today also none appeared and, therefore, we decide to proceed for adjudicating the issues raised in this appeal with the assistance of ld. D/R and available records.

4.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “

1. That the order passed u/s 250 of the IT. Act, 1961 confirming the additions made in order passed u/s 143(3) I.T. Act, 1961 is bad is law as well as on facts of the case.

2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not deleting the additions of the ground that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the appellant company during the course of assessment proceedings.

3. That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in respect of disallowance of loss claimed in Future and Options transactions to I.T.A. No.: 117/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 M/s. Adwita Finvest Private Limited. the tune of Rs 8,91,401/- by treating the same as bogus claim to deflate the income.

4. That the Hon’ble CIT(A), NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO in respect of disallowance u/s 14A r/w rule 8D to the tune of Rs 13,33,356/-.

5. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce any of the grounds of hearing during the course of appellate proceedings.”

5. At the outset ld. D/R submitted that the impugned order is an ex-parte order as the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) even after being provided multiple opportunities.

6.

We have heard ld. D/R and perused the records placed before us. Ld. D/R has rightly pointed out that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and nothing has been discussed on merits of the case. On perusal of para 5 of the impugned order, we find that some of the dates fall during the COVID-19 restrictions which may have restricted the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, in the interest of justice, being fair to both the parties and also considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case and the impugned order is not a speaking order, deem it fit to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered, in support of its grounds of appeal and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance before the ld. CIT(A), then ld. CIT(A) can proceed in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order dealing with the merits of the case.

I.T.A. No.: 117/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 M/s. Adwita Finvest Private Limited. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 15th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 15.06.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. M/s. Adwita Finvest Private Limited, P-2, New CIT Road, Aradhana Building, Kolkata-700 023.

2. ITO, Ward-13(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →