RAJANI AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 25(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 881/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not discuss the basic facts or provide a detailed adjudication as required. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(vii) and for unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order confirming these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the additions on merits in an ex-parte order without discussing the facts and providing detailed adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri S.S. Godara

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajani Agarwal…......……………..............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…..…….......Appellant 9A, Shreedhar Roy Road Tiljala Kolkata-700 039 [PAN : AQRPA 0252 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd.-25(3), Kolkata…………………………….……......…….....….…............Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, CIT D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 31st, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : 31/12/ 2018 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM :- This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’s order dated 17/10/2017 passed in case No. 186/CIT(A)-7/Kol/Wd-25(3)/16-17, confirming the Assessing Officer’s action addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act and unexplained cash credits.

2.

Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. The assessee has already been sent a notice by RPAD on 08/10/2018. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Her instant appeal is not taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

The assessee’s twin substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenges the correctness of both the lower authorities action adding amounts of Rs.12,55,000/- u/s56(2)(vii) and unexplained cash credits; respectively.

4.

A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the CIT(A) has passed this order ex- parte whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s action on merits in para 7 of his lower appellate order. I find that there is no averment in the CIT(A)’s order about actual service of notice. Learned lower authority’s case is that the assessee did not put in Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajani Agarwal appearance despite the fact that it had resorted to affixation of the hearing notice. He has thereafter confirmed both the impugned additions on merits. Learned CIT D/R fails to dispute that the CIT(A)’s adjudication on merits has not discussed even the basic facts of the two issue followed by a detailed adjudication u/s 250(6) of the Act.

5.

I therefore restore the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law on merits.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)

All 365 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(vii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →