SMT. BHABANI ROY,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 988/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 November 2018AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that sufficient opportunities were given, as there was no proof of notice service or adjudication on merits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order affirming the disallowance of the assessee's Section 80IB deduction claim. The assessee appealed this order to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly afforded opportunities of hearing and adjudicated the appeal on merits when passing an ex parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IB,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

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 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’s order dated 30.08.2015 passed in case No.307/CIT(A)-14/Ward-46(1)/2010-11 involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

It appears at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing assessee’s sec. 80IB deduction claim of ₹17,94,548/- in assessment order dated 26.02.2011. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) had afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee for presenting her case during the course of lower appellate proceedings.

More judgments on Section 80IB

All 1,094 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →