M/S PHONIX UDYOG PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found it fair to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance and lack of authenticated written submissions. The assessee argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by both the AO and CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 14A,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 2(24)(x)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ) & Shri S.S. Godara, JM]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI KOLKATA BENCH ‘(B)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri S.S. Godara, JM] Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Phonix Udyog Pvt. Ltd....................................…………………………...........................Appellant C/o. S.M. Surana, Advocate, Diamond Heritage, 15th Floor, R. No. 1501, Kolkata – 700 001. [PAN: AACCP 4046 N] DCIT, Circle – 2(2), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances by: Shri Sunil Surana, FCA appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 12, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : January 03, 2020 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 1, Kolkata dated 15.03.2019 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of air conditioners, sheet metal products & plastic moulded products. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 31,87,570/-. The said return was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO to the assessee on 05.09.2014. The said notice issued by the AO u/s 143(2) as well as the subsequent notices issued by him u/s 142(1) however mostly remained uncomplied with by the assessee. The AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Phonix Udyog Pvt. Ltd. material available on record and in the assessment so completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide an order dated 07.12.2015, the following additions were made by the AO to the total income of the assessee: “1. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D Rs. 45,38,533/- 2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) Rs. 47,06,965/- 3. Disallowance u/s 2(24)(x) Rs. 45,680/- 4. Disallowance of penalty Rs. 1,546/- 5. Disallowance of service tax on GTA Rs. 45,467/- Rs. 48,986/-”
6. Tax deductible but not deducted
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the various additions made by the AO to its total income. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. A written submission however was filed by the assessee and keeping in view that the same was not authenticated, the Ld. CIT(A) did not take cognizance of the same and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 15.03.2019 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the written submission filed by the assessee was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on technical ground and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by him vide his impugned order passed ex-parte without giving any further opportunity to the assessee of being heard and without going into the merit of the issues raised in the said appeal. He has submitted that Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Phonix Udyog Pvt. Ltd. even the AO during the course of assessment proceedings did not given proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and proceeded to make a high pitched assessment without considering that there was a sufficient cause for the non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. He has urged that this matter may, therefore, be sent back to the AO for making the assessment afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the course of appellate proceedings. She has contended that if at all the Tribunal is inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee by sending the matter back to the AO, some cost may be imposed on the assessee.
Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned representatives of both these sides and having regard to the facts of the case, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard by sending the matter back to the AO subject however to a payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the assessee. Subject to the payment of the said cost by the assessee to the department, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO with the direction to make the assessment afresh in accordance with law after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the AO and shall extend all the Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Phonix Udyog Pvt. Ltd. cooperation in order to enable the AO to complete the assessment afresh expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd January, 2020.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026