Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ)]
order : June 24, 2020 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 12, Kolkata dated 28.11.2019.
The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of dealing in lottery ticket on wholesale basis in the name and style of his proprietary concern, M/s. Burima & Sons. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,24,120/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 26.12.2016, the total income of the assesssee was determined by the AO at Rs. 9,47,308/- after making the following two additions: “i. Alleged double debit on account of purchases Rs. 3,97,000/- Rs. 26,191/-” ii. Gross profit on the alleged undisclosed sales
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shibu Saha 3. Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same and confirmed the addition made by the AO to the total income of the assessee for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 3 of his impugned order: “From the appeal folder, it is seen that the appellant has filed no submission. Grounds of appeal and statement of facts do not explain why the AO’s decisions have been challenged. The addition of Rs. 3,97,000/- has been specifically mentioned in ground no. 3, 4 and 5, but the other addition of Rs. 26,191/- does not find mention in any of the grounds. As regards Rs. 3,97,000/-, it is the AO’s case that the appellant resorted to double debit of the same amount to declare appellant’s purchase. The AO has further noted that the learned AR admitted the fact (of double debit to PL Ac/). The reason for the addition is thus that the same amount was debited to P&L twice. In view of the appellant’s liability to point out what is wrong with the AO’s observations, I find it difficult to interfere with the AO’s order. I, therefore, do not allow any of the grounds raised.”
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, the learned counsel for the assessee has moved an application seeking adjournment. It is however observed that the main grievance of the assessee as projected in ground no. 4 & 5 is that the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was not considered by him and no speaking order was passed by him on merit on the issues raised in the grounds. A perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) also clearly shows that there is no reference whatsoever to the written submission stated to be filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250, the Ld. CIT(A) was required
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Shibu Saha 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 satisfy this requirement as rightly pointed out by the assessee in ground no. 5 raised in this appeal. Even the ld. DR has not been able to dispute this position. I therefore, 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 by passing a well reasoned and well discussed order after taking into consideration, the written submission stated to be filed by the assessee and after giving the assessee one more opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24th June, 2020.