Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’ble
Per Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 01/10/2019, passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution. 2. None appeared before us on behalf of the assessee. 3. We find that the order of the ld. Assessing Officer dated 29/12/2016 is an ex- parte order passed u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). It is noted that the assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income on 29/09/2009 disclosing total income of Rs.1,93,55,905/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee which was served upon the assessee on 30/03/2016. According to the Ld. AO, reasons for reopening was supplied to the assessee on 20/07/2016. However, according to the Ld. AO it did not elicit any response from the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. Assessing Officer gave the assessee last opportunity of hearing seeking explanation of certain bank transactions carried out by the assessee. Since there was no compliance from the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.62,50,000/- (aggregate of Rs.40,00,000/- + Rs.22,50,000/-) relating to the assessee’s transactions for payment and deposit of the said sum by treating it as unexplained income found in the books of the assessee during the relevant previous year.
Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rawatsons Engineering Pvt. Ltd Rawatsons Engineering Pvt. Ltd 4. Against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of t Against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of t Against the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). According to the Ld. CIT(A), s According to the Ld. CIT(A), since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notice there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(A) passed passed the impugned ex-parte order on the basis of material available on record and confirmed the addition of order on the basis of material available on record and confirmed the addition of order on the basis of material available on record and confirmed the addition of Rs.62,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the same as unexplained made by the Assessing Officer by treating the same as unexplained made by the Assessing Officer by treating the same as unexplained income found in the books of accounts of the assessee. income found in the books of accounts of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this eved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this eved by the said order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
As noted, none appeared appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. However, on behalf of the assessee before us. However, on perusal of records before us and the facts discussed (supra), according to us perusal of records before us and the facts discussed (supra), according to us perusal of records before us and the facts discussed (supra), according to us, the assessee ought to have been given proper opportunity to explain the facts as held by the assessee ought to have been given proper opportunity to explain the facts as held by the assessee ought to have been given proper opportunity to explain the facts as held by the Apex Court in the case of Tin Box Apex Court in the case of Tin Box Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 249 ITR 216 [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) that order must be made after the assessee has been given a order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. Accordingly, considering the Accordingly, considering the records before us, facts discussed records before us, facts discussed above and the decision of Apex Court, above and the decision of Apex Court, we find it fair and proper in the interest of justice it fair and proper in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order passed to set aside the impugned order passed ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) and restore the m he ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. opportunity of being heard to the assessee. opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and also directed to be diligent and make its submissions to enable him him to expeditiously adjudicate the appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the Kolkata, the 23rd day of February, 2022.