Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’s order dated 28.08.2017 passed in case No.147/CIT(A)-13/Tech-2/Kol/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Active Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO,Tech-2, Kol Page 2 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 31 days delay in filing. It has placed on record its condonation petition alongwith its director’s affidavit stating reason thereof to communication gap with its tax consultants and arguing counsel before the tribunal. The Revenue is fair enough in not disputing the said averments. We therefore treat the impugned 31 days delay as neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of the circumstances beyond the assessee’s control. Its main appeal is now taken up for adjudication on merits.
Coming to merits, we find that the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised
in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action treating its share application money amounting to ₹7,71,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s/. 68 of the Act. We find from the assessment order dated 23.03.2015 that the Assessing Officer has nowhere considered assessee’s detailed evidence in support of its share application / premium received during the course of relevant previous year. Same appears to be the factual position with CIT(A)’s order passed ex parte mentioning anything about the actual service of the lower appeal hearing notice. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that then appears to be change of assessee’s address from assessment onwards and the CIT(A);s jurisdiction has also changed from the CIT(A)
2. Kolkata to CIT(A)
13. Kolkata. All these facts and circumstances sufficiently indicate the assessee’s has been deprived of its valuable right of hearing in the assessment for non- consideration of detailed evidence as well as lower appellate proceedings. There is no finding about the actual service of notice followed by framing points of determination and detailed adjudication u/s. 250(6) of the Act. We therefore deem it appropriate that larger interest Active Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO,Tech-2, Kol Page 3 would be met in this restore back the file to Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication as per law.