BARUN KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-22, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2451/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without proper adjudication of the issues. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned additions made by lower authorities for unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property. The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without dealing with the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits when passing an ex parte order. Whether the addition for unexplained investment in immovable property was correctly made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 133(6),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B(SMC

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2451/KOL/2019
I.T.A. No. 2452/KOL/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1.

These two assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2013-14 arise against the CIT(A), 6, Kolkata’s orders dated 24-12-2018 passed in case nos. CIT(A),Kol-6/10190/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘Act’).

None appears at the assessee’s behest. Accordingly, it is proceeded ex parte. 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condition petition dt. 15- 11-2019 explaining drop delay in filing the appeal and on account of non rebuttal of said solemn averments from the revenue side, I 2 & 2452/Kol/19 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2013-14 condone the foregoing delay as neither intentional nor bonafide but on account of circumstances beyond assessee’s control.

3.

Coming to merits, it emerges that both the lower authorities have made the impugned unexplained investment addition of Rs. 29,69,262/- regarding purchase of immovable property. Learned lower authorities appear to have proceeded on the basis of the relevant information coming from the ADSR, Behala u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Case file suggests that the learned CIT(A)’s order has been passed ex parte without dealing with merits the issue(s) raised therein in compliance of section 250(6) of the Act requiring framing of points of determination followed a detailed adjudication. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing. I order accordingly.

4.

Same order to follow in assessee’s later appeal as well as keeping in mind similarity on facts as well as condonation petition.

5.

These two assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 31 -01-2020

Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, the 31st day of January, 2020 Copies to : (1) Barun Kumar Pramanik, C/o. Gaurav Mathur, Advocate, 1B, Nando Mallick Lane, Jhunjhunwala House, Kolkata-700006

(2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata, 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-700016

(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- , Kolkata

(5) The Departmental Representative

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →