PARVATI DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1337/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 December 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been properly served the hearing notice in the lower appellate proceedings, as the address remained the same and the AO had served notices during assessment. The CIT(A)'s order also lacked detailed discussion on the issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was against the CIT(A)'s ex parte order. The CIT(A) had noted that the hearing notice was returned with remarks indicating the company was not known at the address.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was properly served notice in the lower appellate proceedings and whether the CIT(A) provided a detailed discussion of the issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 250(6),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA

Before: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’s order dated 25.10.2016 passed in case No.256/CIT(A)-5/Wd-13(3)/15-16, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest despite the fact that the registry has already sent an RPAD notice dated 01.11.2018. We therefore take up the main appeal itself for adjudication in assessee’s absence.

2.

The assessee’s twin substantive grounds pleaded in the instant appeal challenge both the lower authorities’ action treating its share capital of ₹26,24,70,000/- to be unexplained cash credits and followed by sec. 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D disallowance of ITA No. 1337/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Paarvati Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward-13(3), Kol. Page 2 ₹1,64,744/-; respectively. It transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte after noting that postal authorities had returned the relevant hearing notice as remarked “no such company in this address hence not known”. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of haring that CIT(A) has rightly affirmed assessment findings making the above two addition(s) in these facts and circumstances. We find no reason to concur with the Revenue’s above arguments. The fact remains that the assessee’s address has remained same throughout from assessment till date. The Assessing Officer had successfully served all the scrutiny notices during the course of assessment. We therefore to conclude that the assessee has not been properly served relevant hearing notice in lower appellate proceedings. Coupled with this, we find that there is no detailed discussion at all in the CIT(A)’s order regarding two issues as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. We therefore restore assessee’s grievance back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as per law after affording three effective opportunities of hearing subject to payment of ₹10,000/- as costs. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

3.

Order pronounced in open court on 26/12/2018 (लेखा सद&य) ("या(यक सद&य) *Dkp-Sr.PS )दनांकः- 26/12/2018 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Parvati Dealers Pvt. Ltd., 128, Salkia School Road, Ground Floor, Opp. Hooghly Dock, Howrah-711106

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO, Ward-13(3), 110, Shanti Palli, OP.Ruby Hospital, Kasba,E.M. By-pass, Kolkata-107 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. गाड2 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ,धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →