M/S. THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2054/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 February 2020AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was not in accordance with law as it failed to consider the assessee's grievance on merits. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming the AO's addition of ₹3,47,15,685/- as unexplained cash credits. The assessee's grievance on merits was not considered by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without considering the assessee's grievance on merits. Whether the addition under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Shri S. Jhajharia,FCA & अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT-SR-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 23-01-2020 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 12-02-2020 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement 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)-1 Kolkata’s order dated 30.08.2018 passed in case No.10641/CIT(A)-1/2014-15/16-17/Kol, involving proceedings 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that CIT(A) has passed his order ex parte whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action taking recourse to sec. 147 r.ws. 144 proceedings thereby treating a sum of ₹3,47,15,685/- received in cash / transfer as Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kol. Page 2 unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. The Revenue’s case during the course of hearing is that both the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition after initiating sec. 147 proceedings. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A)’s ex parte order to this effect has nowhere taken into consideration the assessee’s grievance on merits in tune with sec. 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed by a detailed discussion. We therefore deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that the CIT(A)’s holds re- examine the assessee’s grievance on merits as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →