M/S. SARJU TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1850/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 March 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue is that the assessee claims to have not received crucial notices during both the assessment and appellate proceedings due to postal anomalies.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices, and if so, the impact on the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR, JCIT
Hearing: 25/03/2019Pronounced: 29/03/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-18, Kolkata, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) dated 18.02.2015.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

M/s SarjuTradelink Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 1. That the order passed u/s 144 by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as well as in facts of the case.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by not giving the appellant, a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by confirming the additions made by the ld. A.O. who treated the share application money including premium of Rs. 1,99,77,480/- as unexplained cash credit and added back the same to the total income of the appellant u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add/or amend any ground of this appeal.

3.

At the outset itself, the ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get final notice for hearing due to postal anomalies. In the assessment proceedings, the final show cause notice returned unserved vide relevant observation of Assessing Officer which is given below:

“In the instant case, the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 filed on 11.10.2012 declaring income of Rs. NIL. The return was u/s 143(1) on 21.02.2013. Subsequently the case was selected for through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Accordingly, the notice was issued on 16.08.2013 and was duly served on the assessee. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 along with details was issued on 28.04.2014 through speed post. However, there was no communication till 5th February, 2015. As the case is getting barred by limitation on 31 days , a final show cause was issued on 06.02.2015 thereby allowing assessee to give opportunity to appear on 16.02.2015 at 11.30 am. Failing which the assessee in this case shall be completed without further reference to them. However, final show cause has retruned unserved once again with postal remark to complete the assessment to the best of judgment on the basis of material available on record.”

4.

The ld. Counsel also submitted that during the appellate proceedings the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing vide relevant para of the order of ld. CIT(A) which is given below:

“This appeal is directed against order u/s 144 dated 18.02.2015, passed by ITO, Ward-7(3). Appeal has been filed on 11.06.2015. Notices dated 28.05.2018 & 18.06.2018 were issued. E-mail also generated through ITBA online systems and in registered PAN based E-MAIL ID. However, no one attended in response to these notices. Hence, appeal is decided on the basis of material available on record.”

M/s SarjuTradelink Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2012-13 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the assessee (which spells out by ground no. 2 raised by the assessee) is that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer, as the final show cause notice returned unserved due to postal anomalies. During the appellate stage also assessee did not get notice for hearings. Therefore we are of the view that the assessee could not plead his case properly, hence one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR for the revenue did not have objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer. Therefore we think it fit and appropriate to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, and hence we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 29.03.2019

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →