MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1279/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 September 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a communication gap. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without proper adjudication and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed with a significant delay. The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order upholding additions made by the AO, including sundry debtors, undisclosed income on contractual payments, and interest on deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal when passing an ex parte order without affording the assessee adequate opportunity. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

Hearing: 13.09.2018Pronounced: 28.09.2018
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)-14, Kolkata’s ex parte order dated 31.10.2017 passed in case no. 76/CIT(A)-14/Wd- 46(1)/2015-16 upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding sundry debtors amount of Rs. 2lacs allegedly without disputing the sales, undisclosed income on contractual payment received of Rs. 4,52,000/- and interest on deposits amounting to Rs. 20,248/-; respectively in assessment order dated 13.03.2015 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act.

2.

I notice at the outset that the instant appeal suffers from delay of 143 days in filing. The assessee has filed a solemnly attested affidavit dated 11.06.2018 elaborating all reasons thereof. Learned Departmental Representative is fair enough in not disputing correctness thereof. I thus condone the delay of 143 days in filing to be neither

Manoj Kumar Agarwal A.Yr. 2012-13 intentional nor deliberate but attributable to communication gap between the assessee and his auditor. The case is now taken up for adjudication.

3.

Case file suggests that the CIT(A) has passed his lower appellate order ex parte in affirming all the three disallowances /additions. He issued two notices of hearing dated 02.08.2017 and 28.08.2017. The assessee did not appear . This made him to affirm all the three heads disallowance / addition without even considering the relevant details in the light of section 250(6) of the Act requiring point of determination and a detailed adjudication. I therefore restore the instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 28.09.2018

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →