SUBHASIS DAS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIR.-23, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 592/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 April 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding violation of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing a sufficient opportunity to produce evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against additions made by the AO was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to lack of evidence. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) order was passed without sufficient opportunity due to the COVID-19 pandemic preventing the production of documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC

Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP(KZ)]

order : April 23, 2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Kolkata dated 22.09.2020.

2.

The assessee in the present case is an individual who derives income from salary and other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 01.07.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 20,36,969/-. The said return was subsequently revised by the assessee on 29.07.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 19,21,870/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through ‘CASS’ and in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 31.03.2014, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 21,45,750/- after making the following additions:

1.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Subhasis Das “i. Disallowance of deduction on account of interest on capital borrowed of Rs. 90,278/- ii. Disallowance of deduction on account of repayment of principal loan amount u/s 80C of Rs. 20,292/-. iii. Addition on account of house rent allowance including conveyance of Rs. 57,565/-. iv. Addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of Rs. 2,00,000/-.”

3.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions made by the AO to his total income. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), a written submission was filed on behalf of the assessee in support of all the issues raised in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). There was however no evidence filed by the assessee to support and substantiate the stand taken in the written submission and in the absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed all the additions made by the AO to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The preliminary issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 2 of this appeal is that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and there is a violation of principle of natural justice. In support of this issue raised by the assessee, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was residing in Bangalore at the relevant

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Subhasis Das time and the authorised representative who presented the assessee’s case before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be provided with relevant documentary evidence to support and substantiate his case due to ongoing Covid -19 Pandemic and the lockdown period. He has contended that there was thus a sufficient cause for the failure of the assessee to produce the relevant documentary evidence in support of his case and urged that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce such evidence by sending the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Keeping in view all the facts of the case, I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and since the ld. DR has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for proper consideration, I set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity for produce relevant document evidence in support of his case on the issues involved therein. As under taken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd April, 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →