Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”
Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM आयकर अपीलसं./ ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s Manrup Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 5/1, Clive Row, 4th Floor, Room No.125, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAOCS2809N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Dhrubjyoti Ray, DR, JCIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/06/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 18, Kolkata dated 06.03.2018 passed in Case No.1115/CIT(A)-18/Kol/Wd-9(1)/2015-16/F.SLNo.2069/17-18/Kol involving proceedings u/s 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
For the reasons stated in assessee’s condonation petition explaining the delay of attributable to communication gap a compilation of necessary records as well as on account of no objection from the Revenue side, we condone 35 days’ delay in filing of the instant appeal on account of circumstances beyond control. The case is now taken for adjudication on merits.
3. It transpires at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s share capital/premium of Rs.52,75,00,000/- as Section 68 unexplained cash credits in assessment order dated 26.03.2015; has been passed ex parte without even indicating as to whether the relevant notices of hearing stood served or not. Coupled with this, the assessee’s clinching plea that it had filed voluminous documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor parties which has nowhere been considered. All this has also been remained unrebutted from the Revenue side. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) to pursue its grievance in absence of service of notice. We therefore deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that larger interest of justice would be met in case the learned CIT(A) decides the matter afresh as per law. More so when there is no adjudication on merits in the CIT(A)’s ex parte order under challenge. We order accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.