SELEHIUM TRADING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1599/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 November 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had declined the appeal solely on account of non-appearance, not on merits. Therefore, it was appropriate to adjudicate the issues on merits after affording adequate opportunities.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming the Assessing Officer's disallowance of foreign exchange loss. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) during the lower appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits, and whether the disallowance of foreign exchange loss was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’s order dated 29.05.2018 passed in case No.1687/CIT(A)-1/Ward-1(3)/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

It is noticed at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte thereby affirming Assessing Officer’s action invoking sec.36(1)(iii) r.w.s 14A r.w.s. 8D disallowing of loss in foreign exchange through MCX involving respective figures of ₹13,26,921/-, ₹66,365 & 16,36,911/- respectively. Mr. Choudhury’s case is that CIT(A) has rightly upheld the assessment findings since the assessee had not put in appearance during the lower appellate proceedings. I find that CIT(A) has declined the assessee’s appeal not on merits but on account of non-appearance. I therefore Selehium Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd--1(3) Kol. Page 2 deem it appropriate in this facts and circumstances that on larger interest would be made in case the CIT(A) has adjudicated all the three issues on merits after affording adequate opportunities of hearing. The assessee had not sought any adjournment in the impugned second round as a matter of routine.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →