M/S. GOLDLINE DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1662/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 August 2018AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A) and that principles of natural justice were violated.

What were the facts?

The assessee company declared a total loss, but the AO determined a substantial total income, making an addition under Section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was valid, and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to lack of proper notices and opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 131,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY & SH. A.T.VARKEY

Hearing: 31.07.2018Pronounced: 30.08.2018

PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by CIT(A)-7, Kolkata for AY 2011-12.

2.

The assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 22.02.2012 declaring total loss of Rs.45,698/-. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) determining the total income at Rs. 12,18,50,000/- inter alia making an addition u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority confirmed the addition in an ex-parte order.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was violation of principle of natural justice and no notices were served to the assessee. He pleaded that the AO has also not given adequate opportunity to the assessee and just because persons having appeared in response to summons u/s 131, the addition was made. He relied on certain case laws and submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Year: 2011-12] 4. Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the contention of the assessee and submitted that, the assessee has not cooperated in the proceedings without prejudice to the above argument, alternatively he submitted that if the Bench decides to set aside the matter, it should be sent back to the Ld.CIT(A), as an ex- parte order was passed by him.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions, and as the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex- parte order, the issue is restored to this file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law as the assessee has satisfied us that it was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) in his wisdom may call for a Remand Report from the AO if he so desires.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →