HUNGERFORD CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-12(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1050/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 October 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that there was no effective service of notice on the assessee by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with statutory requirements. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-service of notices. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly served notice on the assessee and followed the procedural requirements for disposing of an appeal ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, KZ]

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President, KZ] Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hungerford Constructions (P) Ltd....................................………………………….............Appellant Block-D, 139 Regent Estate, 176/14/139, Raipur Road, Kolkata – 700 092. [PAN: AAACH 8544 H] VS Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………………………..........................Respondent Ward – 12(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances by: None appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : October 15, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : October 15, 2019 ORDER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 4, Kolkata dated 28.02.2019 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

2.

The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,919/-. Although the said return was initially processed by the AO u/s 143(1), the assessment was subsequently reopened by him on the basis of information received from DIT (Inv.), Kolkata. He accordingly issued a notice u/s 148 in reply to which a letter was filed by the assessee on 19.07.2016 stating that the return originally filed on 15.02.2010 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not offer any satisfactory explanation

Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hungerford Constructions (P) Ltd. as regards sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- deposited in its bank account in cash. The AO, therefore, treated the said amount as undisclosed income of the assessee and addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- was made by him to the total income of the assessee in assessment completed u/s 147/143(3) vide an order dated 23.11.2016.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3), an appeal 3. was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the validity of the assessment made by the AO as well as disputing the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- made to its total income. There was however no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 28.02.2019 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal of the assessee is therefore being disposed of ex-parte after hearing the arguments of the learned DR and perusing the relevant material available on record. It is observed from the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing from time to time could not be served on the assessee for the reasons stated by the Ld. CIT(A) himself in his order. It is thus clear that there was no effective service of notice on the assessee which apparently resulted in the non- appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) when its appeal was called for hearing. Moreover, as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hungerford Constructions (P) Ltd. section 250, the Ld. CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. It is observed that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not comply with these requirements. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15th October, 2019.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →