M/S TOLLYGUNGE COUNTRY SPIRIT SHOP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-28(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 605/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 February 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and no issues were decided on merits, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late by 12 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of their Chartered Accountant's father. The Assessing Officer made additions based on discrepancies between the assessee's purchase figures and TCS figures in Form 26F.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside for a fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned as being decided upon

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B-SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

आदेश /O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21-09-2020 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

2.

No one has put in appearance despite notice. Therefore, the impugned appeal is decided after going through the records and after hearing the Ld.DR.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 12 days. A separate application for condonation of said delay has been filed, wherein reasons for delay in filing this appeal have been mentioned that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and death of Chartered Accountant’s father, ( who looks after the M/s. Tollygunge Country Spirit Shop Page 2 Income Tax matters of the assessee) , the assessee was unable to file this appeal before the Tribunal in time. Considering the above reasons mentioned therein (in the condonation application) the delay is hereby condoned.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. DR has brought to my attention that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. He has further submitted that in this case the addition(s) was made by the Ld. Assessing Officer ( in short, the ‘Ld. AO’) due to difference found in the figure of purchases shown by the assessee as against shown in the TCS figures in 26F Form. The Ld. DR has also submitted that the assessee was required to file reconciliation statement explaining the difference found in purchase figures.

5.

After hearing the Ld. DR and going through the record, I find that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. None of the issues involved in this appeal have been decided on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of that, for the sake of principle of natural justice, the assessee is required to be given adequate opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that Ld. CIT(A) will provide proper and appropriate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and to file reconciliation statement found in purchase figures. Thereafter, he will decide the issue(s) afresh in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court at the close of the hearing on 9th February, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →