CENTURY DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O. WARD-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1415/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 August 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without hearing the assessee or considering their written submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The CIT(A) had sought a remand report from the AO, which was not provided, and then issued a fresh notice to the assessee which was not complied with.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order without providing a proper hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]

Hearing: 25.07.2018Pronounced: 03.08.2018

ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM

1.

This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 264/CIT(A)- 9/Wd-1(2)/2015-16/Kol dated 15.03.2017 against the order passed by the ITO, Ward- 1(2), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3)/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 26.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal, among others on merits, is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Century Devcons Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2008-09 3. The brief facts of this appeal is that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2014 pursuant to directions of the CIT u/s 263 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,61,67,800/-, wherein an addition towards share capital and share premium amounting to Rs. 5,61,50,000/- was added as unexplained cash credit. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The written submissions were filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 10.08.2016 and the case was adjourned to 30.08.2016. The written submission filed by the assessee were sought to be verified by the ld. CIT(A) by calling for a remand report from the ld. AO. The ld. AO did not reply to the said letter of the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) issued fresh notice dated 14.03.2017 to the assessee which were not complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal ex parte. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an order ex parte without hearing the assessee and without considering the written submissions available on record. In view of these facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 03.08.2018

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →