TRADE APARTMENTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1241/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 February 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee contended that proper opportunities were not provided, supported by an affidavit detailing missed hearings and lack of fresh notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed principles of natural justice by providing adequate opportunity of hearing before passing an ex-parte order. Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH (D

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

order

: February 15, 2019 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 7, Kolkata dated 27.03.2018 passed ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

2.

The assessee in the present case is a non banking financial company. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 11.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs. 64,70,823/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 16.03.2015 the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at a loss of Rs. 26,98,900/- after making an addition of Rs. 37,71,922/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D.

3.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the 2 Trade Apartments Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his order dated 27.03.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard was not given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte. In this regard, he has filed an affidavit of Shri Alok Kalani, a representative authorised by the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the relevant fact on oath as under: “1. I am the Authorsed Representative of M/s. Trade Apartments Ltd. 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’). 2. Against the order u/s 143(3) dated 16.03.2015 passed by the DCIT, Circle 4(2), Kolkata for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)). 3. A notice of hearing dated 03.04.2017 for the said appeal was issued by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata bearing Appeal No. 117/CIT(A)-2/2015-16 fixing the date of hearing on 27.04.2017. 4. On 27.04.2017, I had appeared before the Ld. CIT(A)-2 with the written submission in support of the grounds of appeal preferred by the company and the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that he was busy in some urgent and he stated that a new notice of refixation of hearing will be issued.

3 Trade Apartments Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13

5.

On 10.01.2018, another notice of hearing was issued by the Ld. CIT(A)- 7, Kolkata bearing Appeal No. 1237/(A)-7/Kol/2017-18 fixing the hearing on 01.02.2018.

6. On 01.02.2018, I had gone to attend the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata. However, the CIT(A) was not in office and upon enquiry from the office of the CIT(a)-7, Kolkata. I was informed by the office of the CIT(A) that the CIT(A) has gone out for some urgent work and a fresh notice of hearing will be issued. 7. I state that after the aforesaid notice dated 01.02.2018, no notice of hearing dated 04.02.2018 fixing the hearing on 20.02.2018or another notice fixing the hearing on 12.03.2018 was received by the company.”

5. Keeping in view the assertion made in the affidavit as above, we are satisfied that proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard was not given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte and there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Even the learned DR has not been able to dispute this position. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex – parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →