SRI SAMBHU NATH KESARI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1757/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 August 2018AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the ex parte nature of the order and lack of findings on service of hearing notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the addition of cash deposits in his proprietary concern's bank account. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without dealing with the merits of the issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without adjudicating the merits of the addition and without confirming proper service of hearing notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godara

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’s ex parte order dated 31.05.2017, passed in case No.132/CIT(A)-14/Wd-47(3)/2015-16 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding cash deposits in his proprietary concern M/s Kedar Nath Trading Co. bank account involving gross figure of ₹11,62,76,874/- estimated @ 8% of the profit coming to ₹93,02,150/-. Suffice to say, we find that the CIT(A)’s order has been passed ex parte. It nowhere

ITA No.1757/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Sri Sambhu Nath Kesari Vs. ITO Wd-47(3), Kol. Page 2 deals with merits of the issue followed by the detailed adjudication u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Coupled with this, we find that there is not even a single finding in CIT(A)’s order under challenge passed ex parte as to whether or not the relevant hearing notice actually stood served on the taxpayer whose address has remained the same right from assessment order upto the instant second appeal proceedings. We thus set aside the assessee’s above sole issue back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits after affording effective opportunity of hearing. This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

3.

Order pronounced in open court on 29/08/2018 (लेखा सद!य) (#या$यक सद!य) (P.M.Jagtap) (S.S.Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member *Dkp-Sr.PS %दनांकः- 29/08/2018 कोलकाता / Kolkata आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Sri Sambhu Nath Kesari, 31, Mukhram Kanoria Road Howrah-711101

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-47(3), 3, Govt. Place (W), 1st Floor, Kolkata-001 3. संबं(धत आयकर आयु+त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु+त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. ,वभागीय "$त$न(ध, आयकर अपील"य अ(धकरण कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड0 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ(धकरण, कोलकाता

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →