ASHOKA CREATIONS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-4(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given a proper opportunity to explain its case, as per Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The AO had made an addition for bogus expenses after the assessee failed to provide explanations. The assessee is now appealing the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Tin Box Company v. CIT624 citing249 ITR 216 · 2001 · SC
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) - 13, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 30/12/2019, passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution. 2. None appeared before us on behalf of the assessee.
As per the Ld. Assessing Officer (ÁO’), the assessee in the present case filed its return of income on 29/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 8,31,710/-. Later, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS (on the ground ‘large other expenses claimed in P and L a/c’). The Ld. AO after issuing statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) asked the assessee to explain the other expenses to the tune of Rs. 13,21,99,419/- which were debited in the profit and loss account. However, according the Ld. AO, there was no response on the part of the assessee despite several reminders and therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 1,11,24,242/- treating it as bogus expenses.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to uphold the additions made by the Ld. AO.
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashoka Creations Pvt. Limited 5. Aggrieved by the afore aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
As noted, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. As noted, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. As noted, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. However, on perusal of records before us and the facts discussed (supra), according to us, the perusal of records before us and the facts discussed (supra), according to us, the perusal of records before us and the facts discussed (supra), according to us, the assessee ought to have been gi assessee ought to have been given proper opportunity to explain the facts as held by the ven proper opportunity to explain the facts as held by the Apex Court in the case of Tin Box Co. v. Commissioner of Income 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 reasonable opportunity order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. Accordingly, considering the records before us, facts discussed Accordingly, considering the records before us, facts discussed Accordingly, considering the records before us, facts discussed above and the decision of Apex Court, we find it fair and proper in the interest of justice above and the decision of Apex Court, we find it fair and proper in the interest of justice above and the decision of Apex Court, we find 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 matter by the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be diligent and make its submissions to enable him to expeditiously also directed to be diligent and make its submissions to enable him to expeditiously also directed to be diligent and make its submissions to enable 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. Sd/- Sd/- Girish Agrawal] [Aby T. Varkey] [Girish Agra Judicial Member Judicial Member Accountant Member Accountant Member Dated: 23.02.2022 {SC SPS}
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashoka Creations Pvt. Limited Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Ashoka Creations Pvt. Limited Limited 204 Eastern Building 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001
Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Kolkata 4(3), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026