ANIL KUMAR KHEMKA (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 32(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1009/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 October 2018AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal issue regarding the validity of reopening of assessment, which was a mandatory duty. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were before the ITAT. The assessee had raised a specific ground challenging the validity of reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, specifically the challenge to the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147/148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]

Hearing: 17.07.2018Pronounced: 10.10.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 516/Kol/2016
I.T.A. No.1009/Kol/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Both these appeals preferred by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata dated 22.01.2016 and 15.03.2017 for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. Since grounds are common and both the appeals have been heard together, we dispose of both these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the challenge raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) against the legal validity of reopening by AO u/s. 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has not been adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) when specific ground number. 2.17 in this respect was raised for AY 2007-08; and for AY 2008-09, ground number. 2.11 was raised specifically by the assessee, which action/omission of Ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced by us. It has to be kept in mind that when Ld. CIT(A) while exercising the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon him

2 & 1009/Kol/2017 Anil Kumar Khemka (HUF), AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 by the statute, was duty bound to adjudicate the legal issue raised by the assessee in accordance to law. Omission on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) in not adjudicating the legal issue as discussed is an error which needs to be corrected by our intervention in this appellate jurisdiction and so, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeal back to his file for fresh adjudication of the legal issue raised by the assessee in respect to validity of reopening assailed by the assessee by passing a reasoned order after hearing the assessee. Therefore, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated : 10th October, 2018 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – M/s. Anil Kumar Khemka (HUF), 15/1, Loudon Street, Kolkata-700 017. 2 Respondent – ITO, Wd-32(3), Kolkata.

3. CIT(A)-9, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

4.

CIT, Kolkata

5.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →