PRATEEK NIKETAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 586/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 September 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to prosecute its case in the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee's representative fell ill on the date of hearing before the CIT(A), preventing their appearance. The assessee requested a remand for fresh adjudication, citing lack of opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to unforeseen circumstances, warranting a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D ‘ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

The above appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order dt. 03-01-2017 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 2, Kolkata for the A.Y 2012-13, wherein he confirmed the impugned additions made by AO u/s. 68 & 14 of the Act r.w.r 8D of the IT Rules, 1962.

2.

It was contended by the ld.AR that the assesse appointed Shri Surajit Kumar Roy as representative to prosecute its case before the CIT-A in the first appellate proceedings. The said representative fell on the date of hearing on 23-12-2016 and he could not appear and urged to remand the matter to the file of CIT-A for his fresh adjudication.

3.

On the other hand, the ld.DR opposed to the above submissions of the ld.AR and referred to para 2 of the order of CIT-A and argued that the assesse have been given ample opportunities on 23-09-2016, 29-11-2016 & 23-12-2016, but, the assesse failed to avail the same and as such urged to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

After hearing both the parties and perusing record, we find that the AO added the impugned additions (Rs.6,86,50,000 & Rs.81,961) u/s.68 & 14A of the Act respectively, which was challenged by assessee before the CIT-A. In our opinion, assistance of assesse is required in first appellate proceedings and there was no opportunity for the assessee to prosecute its case. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and additions made thereon, submissions of ld.AR, Affidavit dt. 06-09-2018 and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT-A for his fresh adjudication. The assesse is at liberty to file necessary evidences/explanation to substantiate its claim/contention. The assesse is also directed not to seek any adjournment and to co- operate with the CIT-A for speedy disposal of the case. Grounds raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →