M/S RUPNARAYANPUR SUPPLY AGENCY,PASCHIM BARDHAMAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-2(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 256/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 July 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to file their comments and objections against the remand report. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was fixed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily concerned the denial of an adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Specifically, the assessee claimed they were not given a chance to comment on a remand report due to illness.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present their case and comment on the remand report before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 131(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

order : July 08, 2021 ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 against the order dated 09.12.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Asansol (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’). 2. The case was fixed for hearing, no one was appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Therefore, I proceed to adjudicate the present appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the appellate order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), is arbitrary, erroneous and hence bad in law.

1.

2. That, Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), has deleted additions on Account of un-accounted purchases to the extent of Rs.4,10,400/- out of Rs. 18,47,834/- on the basis of remand report of Ld. A.O; Ward - 2(3), Asansol and the Appellant cannot submit the comment on the said remand report due to his prolonged illness, being intimated to Ld. C.I.T(A). In fact, the said remand report of Ld. A.O is erroneous and not on full proof, since, Ld. A.O. has not verified the claims of the assessee from the customers concerned viz,

Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Rupnarayanpur Supply Agency

Bikash Ghosh, Bipad Taran Ghosh and the Bankers viz. United Commercial Bank, Kulti, Ranitala Branch, A/C No:- 04080100012132, United Commercial Bank, Chitra Building Branch, A/C No:- 07820210000069 United Commercial Bank, Kulti, Ranitala Branch A/C No:- 4080200000478 and I.O.C Ltd. by issuing notice U/S 133(6) of I.T. Act 1961 / 131(1) of I. T. Act, 1961. The Appellant has submitted adjournment petition on health ground before Ld. C.I.T (A) and being requested to fix up the date on 2nd week of December for enabling him to submit comment on remand report. But, Ld. A.O has passed the order on 9th December 2019 without fixing up any date of hearing. Hence, the order is unjustified illegal and is against the principal of natural justice and law, and the order is ought to be cancelled. And; 3. That, the Appellant Firm craves leave to amend, alter, modify and substitute all of the above grounds.”

4.

A perusal of the above grounds of appeal

reveals that the only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that he has not been given adequate and proper opportunity by the CIT(A) to put forth his explanation. It has been pleaded in the grounds related to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases, that the ld. CIT(A) had called upon remand report from the Assessing Officer in this respect. However, in the remand report, the Assessing Officer did not properly verify the claims of the assessee from the concerned parties. It has been pleaded that the assessee had filed an adjournment application before the ld. CIT(A) on the health grounds and for enabling the assessee to submit his objections and comments on the remand report of the Assessing Officer. It has been further pleaded that the ld. CIT(A) did not give opportunity to the assessee to file his objections and comments against the remand report and passed the impugned order.

5. Considering the above pleadings/grounds of appeal, in my view, the interest of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to file his comments/objections against the remand report and further explanations/evidences, if any, in support of his claim. The impugned order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) for decision afresh after giving proper 2

Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Rupnarayanpur Supply Agency opportunity to the assessee as discussed above. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2021. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 08.07.2020. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Rupnarayanpur Supply Agency 2. ITO, Ward-2(3), Asansol 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →