PUSKAR REALCON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 907/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 February 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that dismissing the case for non-prosecution without disposing it on merits is not permissible. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not respond to statutory notices, leading to an ex parte order by the Assessing Officer and subsequently by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was also heard ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The issue of addition of share capital and share premium under Section 68 was also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Date of concluding the hearing : January 16th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : February 1st , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This is an appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 27/02/2018.

2.

The issue that arises for our consideration relates to the addition of share capital and share premium u/s 68 of the Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has passed an order u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee, as per the ld. Assessing Officer did not respond to statutory notices. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order and has not disposed off the case on merit. He dismissed the case for non-prosecution.

3.

None appeared before us despite issuance of notices. There is no petition for adjournment either. Under these circumstances, we dispose off the case ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.

4.

We observe that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the case for non-prosecution. He has not disposed off the case on merits. This is not permissible under law.

2 Puskar Realcon Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hence, we restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law on merits. As the assessee has not been cooperating, we levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) shall ensure that the assessee pays this amount of cost as directed and thereafter take up the appeal for hearing on merits.

5.

The assessee shall appear before the ld. CIT(A) within one month of receipt of the order of the Tribunal, take a notice of hearing from the ld. CIT(A) and thereafter cooperate in disposing off the appeal.

6.

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

Kolkata, the 1stFebruary, 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 →