What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the sole issue as required by law. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was decided ex parte by the CIT(A), who upheld an unexplained investment addition of Rs. 15 lakhs. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the relevant facts and legal requirements.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the factual matrix and legal requirements while passing an ex parte order. The adequacy of the CIT(A)'s adjudication process.

Sri Sekhar Banerjee vs I.T.O., Ward-25(2) | ITAT Kolkata 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 arises against the CIT(A), 7, Kolkata’s order dated 05-09-2019 passed in case no. 108/CIT(A)-7/Ward-25(2)/Kol/18-19 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘Act’).

Heard both the learned parties. Case file perused. 2. It is noticed that at the outset itself the learned CIT(A) passed his lower appellate order ex parte whilst affirming unexplained investment addition of Rs. 15 lakhs made in the assessment order dt. 17-12-2018.

Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Sri Sekhar Banerjee

Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that the lower appellate order under has nowhere been taken into consideration the relevant factual matrix of the sole issue as required u/s. 250(c ) contemplating involved in framing of points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication. I, therefore, restore the sole issue back to him for afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the Court on 31-01-2020

SRI SEKHAR BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-25(2), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments