BHARATPUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, BHARATPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1074/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 September 2017AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal emanated from an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1074/JP/2016

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 09/10/2017Pronounced: 10/10/2017

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1074/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Bharatpur Urban Co- A.C.I.T., Vs. operative Bank Ltd., Bharatpur. Kila, Opp. Police Chowki, Bharatpur (Raj.) LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTT 2075 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Nikhlesh Kataria (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/10/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/10/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of

the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 29/09/2016 for the A.Y. 2008-09, wherein the

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in reopening the assessment on the basis of an audit observation. Such reopening of assessment is bad in law as well as on the facts of the present case and hence the same may please be quashed. 1.2 The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in framing of ex parte assessment without considering the facts and

ITA 1074/JP/2016_ 2 Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. ACIT evidences on record and hence, consequent additions were also bad in law and hence, the same may please be quashed.

1.3 The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as facts of the present case in making of an ex parte order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

Without prejudice to above

2.

Rs. 186403/- The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in making an addition of provision for bad & doubtful debts on the premise deduction is available to rural branch only. The Id. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the same.

3.

Rs.3,48,290/-/- The Ld. C1T(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the Id. AO by treating provision for NPA as not allowable on the basis of an audit observation.

4.

Rs.4600/- The Ld. AO is not justified in making an addition of treating past membership fee representing a capital receipts as profit of current year. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.

5.

The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in not allowing the assessee a deduction of special reserve at 20% of profit derived from eligible business.”

2.

In this case, the assessee has taken various grounds of appeal and

against deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate

opportunity of hearing as well as without merit of the case to the assessee.

3.

In this case original assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) vide order dated 08/12/2010 at

total income of Rs. 11,99,610/- as against the returned income of

Rs.11,59,708/-. Thereafter the assessment U/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act

was completed at the total income of Rs. 17,38,900/-.

ITA 1074/JP/2016_ 3 Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. ACIT 3. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). At the outset

of hearing, the ld AR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had passed ex parte

order and the assessee was deprived of the adequate and effective

opportunity of being heard and he prayed that the matter may be restored

back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding on merit.

4.

The ld. DR was not having any serious objection for this proposal of

the ld. AR. Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice and equity, the issues raised in the

appeal are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and effective opportunity of being heard

to the assessee. Accordingly, the issues raised in the appeal are restored to

the file of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes only.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2017.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10th October, 2017 *Ranjan

ITA 1074/JP/2016_ 4 Bharatpur Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. ACIT आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Bharatpur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1. Bharatpur. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The A.C.I.T., Bharatpur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1074/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →