Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri Manish Borad, & Shri Sonjoy Sarma
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member, and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम M/s.Bonaza Management I.T.O., Ward-12(1), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd V/s. ‘Jasoda Bhawan’ BL-F, 4th Floor,167F, Rashbihari Avenue,Kolkata-700 19. PAN: AABCB3031E अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent .. Hearing through video Conferencing अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sunil Surana,Ld.AR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl.CIT/Ld.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 26-05-2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date 14-06 -2022 of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM :
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04-03-2019 passed by the of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)], Kolkata-4, Kolkata which in turn arises out of assessment order passed u/s. 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’) by ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata on 02-03-2015 for the A.Y 2007-08.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
2. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in decidin8 the appeal exparte without allowing the appellant and proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard.
3. For that the order passed bl) the Ld. C.I.T (A) is bad in law since the ld. C.I.T(A) has not decided the issues ground wise in respect of the grounds raised by the appellant in the Memo of Appeal.
4. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) is bad in law since the order passed is not and speaking order nor the CI.T(A) has looked into the assessment records and relevant materials to conclude that the order of the Ld. AO cannot be interfered with.
5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO while the reason recorded itself is based on suspicion and without application of mind.
6. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of 1,21,00,000/- u/s 69. Whereas no such investment were purchase during the year.
For that even otherwise, the investment in respect of which reassessment proceedings were initiated were purchased on 18th August, 2001 and duly recorded in the books of accounts for the Financial Year 2001-2002 and also in subsequent year. As such the very initiation of re assessment proceedings is bad in law.
For that the under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the Investment of Rs.1,21,00,000/- as undisclosed investment while the same were dull) recorded in book of accounts for the financial year 2001-2002 and also in subsequent year,
For that the order of the AO be modified and the assessee be given relief prayed for.
For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any 8round/s of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee did not get proper opportunity of hearing to file relevant documents during appellate proceedings and the matter was not considered on merits by the ld. CIT(A), he prayed before us that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee by remitting the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not objected to the above submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused material available on record. On perusal of the impugned order and the grounds of appeal of the assssee, we find that the order passed by the ld. CIT-A is an ex parte order without allowing the assessee proper opportunity of hearing to furnish relevant documents for substantiating the claim of assessee. Although, the matter was not considered on its merits. Moreover, no fruitful discussion was made in the impugned order. We, therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play remit the matter to the file of the before the ld. CIT(A) by giving one more opportunity to the assessee to file requisite documents before the ld. CIT(A) for substantiating the claim of assessee. The assessee shall co operate with the ld. CIT(A) for passing a speaking order by furnishing requisite documents/ explanation, if it necessary and to be remained vigilant in receiving/responding notice. The assessee should not request for any further adjournment unless otherwise for a reasonable cause. The ld. CITA) may call remand report from the ld.AO in this regard, if it necessary. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given popper opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.