RIVERBANK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 236/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2020AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) and the short notice from the AO were not in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed with a delay. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without discussing the relevant factual and legal issues. The Assessing Officer also issued a notice with very short time for the assessee to provide details.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without proper adjudication and the short notice from the AO were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, V.P & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCA
Hearing: 10/06/2020Pronounced: 10/07/2020

Appellant by : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, FCA Respondent by : Shri Imokaba Jamir, CIT सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 10/06/2020 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata dated 23.12.2019 passed in Case No.118/CIT(A)-4/2019-20 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

For the reasons stated in assessee’s condonation petition seeking to explain three days’ delay in filing and on account of no objection from the Revenue side, we condone the impugned delay and take up the main appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

It transpires at the outset that the CIT(A)’s order under challenge has been passed ex parte after allegedly affording four opportunities on 14.11.19, 26.11.19, 09.12.19 & 17.12.19; respectively. Learned departmental representative has also highlighted the same during the course of hearing before us. He fails to dispute that the CIT(A)’s ex parte order has not discussed the relevant factual/legal issues

Riverbank Developers Pvt. Ltd. as required u/s 250(6) of the Act. We proceed further and notice from a perusal of the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 as well that the Assessing Officer had issued his notice dated 27.12.2016 to the assessee proposing to disallow/add estimated losses forming part of the cost of sales. Meaning thereby that the assessee had been granted only two days time to file the relevant details even if it is presumed that it received the notice on 27.12.2015 itself. We therefore are of the view that all the assessee’s substantive grounds challenging correctness of the foregoing disallowance/additions deserve to be restored back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh factual verification as per law. We order accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →