AHINSA MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2538/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 February 2020AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the merits of the case and the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) in default due to non-appearance. The CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's action of treating bank deposits of ₹1,60,85,500/- as unexplained cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in default without adjudicating on the merits of the case and the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’s order dated 05.10.2018 passed in case No.11558/CIT(A)-2/16-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that the CIT(A) has noted assessee’s non- appearance during lower appellate proceedings to decline its appeal in default thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action treating bank / cheque deposits of ₹1,60,85,500/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act.

1.

Ahinsa Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kol. Page 2 Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) has nowhere considered merits of the issue in view of the assessee’s detailed evidence forming part of the case record as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the above sole issue involved in the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →