M/S. ADITYA HYDRO CHEM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2556/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 November 2018AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity. Therefore, without going into the merits, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was against an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without proper opportunity of being heard and that the Assessing Officer had not considered all submitted documents during the assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whether the Assessing Officer considered all the documents submitted by the assessee during the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01/10/2018Pronounced: 22/11/2018

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 01/10/2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2018 आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata in Appeal No.151/CIT(A)-13/Kol/2014-15 dated 08.08.2017 which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 17.03.2015.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. For that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

2. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex parte without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the notice was never served even though e mail address was available with the ld. CIT(A) and on the said address the copy of the order was also sent.

3.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of share capital including premium of Rs.1,28,70,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.

4. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the ld. CIT(A) should have properly appreciated the facts on record.

2 M/s. Aditya Hydro Chem Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2012-13 5. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) which is without merit and during the assessment proceedings the ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the documents/explanations submitted by the assessee.

4.

We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

5.

We note that a perusal of the body of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), it is apparent that it is an ex parte order which has been challenged by the assessee for want of proper opportunity. We further note that all supporting documents in support of the merits of the case was furnished to the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not considered some materials/documents submitted by the assessee while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →