SHRI VISHAL JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-37, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1139/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 October 2019AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits and without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 29 days, which was condoned. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(1)(ii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 31.10.2019Pronounced: 31.10.2019

ORDER

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 11, Kolkata dated 14.12.2018 for AY 2015-15. The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- 11, Kolkata u/s. 250 confirming the additions and disallowances made by learned assessing officer is wrong in the law and facts of the case.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not providing the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and the same are against the principles of natural justice.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Kolkata erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition of Rs.7,00,000/- made by the AO in respect of disallowance of deduction claimed u/.s. 35(1)(ii) of the I. T. Act. 4. that the appellant craves to leave, add or amend any of the grounds during the course of appellate proceedings.”

2.

At the outset we find that there is a delay of 29 days in filing of this appeal. After perusing the petition for condonation, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal on time. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

Shri Vishal Jhunjhiunwala, AY 2015-16 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing before us. There is no application for adjournment either. Under these circumstances, we dispose off the case ex- parte on merits qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

4.

At the outset, after perusing the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), we find that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence an ex-parte order was passed dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits and passed a cryptic order. This is not in accordance with law. Hence, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, on the grounds of natural justice.

5.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (J. Sudhakar Reddy) (A. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 31st October, 2019 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1)Appellant – Shri Vishal Jhunjhunwala, 62, Golaghata Road, Kolkata-700 048.

2) Respondent –ACIT, circle-37, Kolkata. 3) CIT(A)-11, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail) 4)CIT , Kolkata 5)DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)

All 329 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(1)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →