M/S JV VINIMAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-6(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 598/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 October 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the ex-parte dismissal order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution due to lack of satisfactory compliance with notices. The assessee is engaged in investment and share trading, and the original assessment included additions under Section 14A and Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was valid and complied with statutory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(C

Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HON’BLE(KZ) & SHRI A. T. VARKEY, HON’BLE]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(C)’, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI A. T. VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [Through Virtual Court] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. JV Vinimay Pvt. Ltd......................................................................................................Appellant 5/1, Clive Row, 4th Floor, Room No. 125, Kolkata – 700 001. [PAN: AACCJ 0021 H] Vs ITO, Ward – 6(2), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………............Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances by: None appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : October 07, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : October 21, 2020 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) - 2, Kolkata dated 12.02.2018 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

2.

The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of investment and trading in shares. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 29.03.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 31,907/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 21.03.2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 23,28,75,000/- after making the following additions:

“i. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 31,907/- ii. Addition u/s 68 by treating the share capital & share premium amount as unexplained cash credit Rs. 23,28,75,000/-”

3.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 12.02.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case before the Tribunal, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is however observed from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the applications were filed by the assessee-company in writing seeking adjournment of hearings fixed before the Ld. CIT(A) and this position is not disputed even by the Ld. DR. Moreover, as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. It is observed that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not comply with these requirements. We, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal afresh on merit in accordance with law by passing a well reasoned and well discussed order after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21st October, 2020.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →