ITO, WARD - 11(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. ONE AD DISPLAY PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2008/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 March 2020AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly disposed of the withdrawn appeal on merits, rendering the order a nullity. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had previously withdrawn their appeal before the CIT(A), which was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the CIT(A) subsequently disposed of the same appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether an order passed by the CIT(A) on merits after an appeal was withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata dated 28.06.2018 on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting 50% of the addition in respect of Foreign Travel Expenses without considering the facts of the case.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition in respect of Accrued Site Hire Charges without considering the facts of the case.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition in respect of Site Hire Charges without considering the facts of the case.

Assessment Year: 2013-2014 M/s. One Ad Display Pvt. Limited

4.

That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition in respect of Interest Expenses on Delayed Payment without considering the facts of the case.

5.

That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition in respect of Bad Debts Written Off without considering the facts of the case. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition in respect of Payment of Advertisement Tax without considering the facts of the case”.

2.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 19.04.2016 bearing Appeal No. 72/CIT(A)-4/16-17 against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) for the year under consideration was withdrawn by the assessee and the same accordingly was dismissed by him as withdrawn vide order dated 28.06.2018. He has submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals), however, again disposed of the said appeal of the assessee wrongly on merit vide his impugned order dated 19.07.2018. He has contended that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) dated 19.07.2018 disposing of the same appeal of the assessee for the second time thus is nullity and the same is liable to be cancelled. The ld. D.R. has also agreed with this contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We accordingly cancel the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) treating the same as nullity.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on March 20, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →