M/S. AMRITLAXMI DEALCOMM PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 919/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 February 2019AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is not permissible. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex parte assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The ITAT heard the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The addition of share capital and share premium under Section 68.

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) - 9, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dated 28/02/2017.

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 M/s. Amritlaxmi Dealcomm Private Limited 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 1st February, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 01.02.2019 (RS, Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. M/s. Amritlaxmi Dealcomm Private Limited, 1, British Indian Street, Kolkata – 700 069.

2. ITO, Ward-3(1), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069.

3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →