What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal suffered from a one-day delay in filing, which was condoned. The lower authorities had made additions to the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without proper notice and without discussing the relevant facts.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by providing adequate opportunities and discussing the facts. Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid.

Srigovind Singh, Hooghly vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’s order dated 17.04.2018 passed in case No.cita,Kol-6/10168/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from one day’s delay in filing. Learned Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing assessee’s condonation plea during the course of hearing. I therefore condone the impugned one day’s delay in filing of instant appeal. The instant appeal is now taken up for hearing.

Coming merits, I notice that the both the lower authorities have added assessee’s income from undisclosed source involving varying sums of ₹98,600/-,

ITA No.1544/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Srigovind Singh Vs. ITO Wd-23(3), HGY Page 2 ₹13.05 lac, ₹2.87 lac, ₹1,14,636, ₹11.42 lac, ₹2,20,072, & ₹1,17,080/- under seven corresponding heads. It further transpires that CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte after fixing the appeal for hearing on 09.02.2018, 20.03.2018 and 16.04.2018. The assessee admittedly appeared on the first day only. There is no material on record which suggests that CIT(A) had issued / actually served the relevant notice of hearing on the last date it 16.04.2018. Coupled with this, I find that he has simply confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action making various addition(s) in para-4 without touching upon the relevant facts followed by a detailed discussion as contemplated sec. 250(6) of the Act. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore this instant lis back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as per law after affording three effective opportunities of hearing to the taxpayer.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 28/02/2019 (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS "दनांकः- 28/02/2019 कोलकाता आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Srgovind Singh, 70/84A, S.C Chatterjee St. Konnagar, Hooghly, 711235

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-23(3), Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु%त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु%त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. &वभागीय ")त)न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड+ फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता ।

SRIGOVIND SINGH,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments