M/S UNNATI PROJECTS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 498/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 September 2018AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found sufficient reason for the AR's non-appearance and deemed it necessary for the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee's AR could not appear before the CIT(A) due to illness, as supported by an affidavit.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte due to the assessee's AR's illness should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM

The above appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 13- 02-2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, 3, Kolkata for the A.Y 2012-13, wherein he confirmed the impugned addition made by AO ex parte.

2.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of affidavit dt. 29-08-2018 deposed by Shri Pankaj Baid, AR of assessee, he was fell ill and was running high fever since 30-01-2017 and as such, he could not appear before the CIT-A during first appellate proceedings. Relevant portion of Affidavit dt. 29-08-2018 is reproduced as under:- “ 1. That I was to represent the case of Unnati Projects Pvt. Ltd before the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata, in Appeal no. 847/CIT(A)-3/ITO, Wd-7(2)/Kol/15-16 for Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. That on the date of hearing, that is, 30/01/2017, I fell ill and I was running high fever since morning. As a result of which, I could not appear before the Hon’ble CIT(A) to represent the case.

3. That the non appearance was not due to any malafide intention but due to the above stated reasons. 4. That whatever is declared herein above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. “

3.

On perusal of above, we find that there was sufficient reason, which prevented the AR in not appearing before the CIT-A to prosecute assessee’s case. The AO made addition u/s. 68 of the Act on account of share application money of Rs. 1,55,70,000/-. In our opinion, the assistance of assessee is required to substantiate its case by explanation in support of claim/contention. Thus, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT-A for his fresh adjudication. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite explanation/evidences, if any, to substantiate its claim/contention. Grounds raised by assesse are allowed for statistical purpose.

4.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on 19 -09-2018

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →