ATHER PERWAIZE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 960/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 July 2018AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the orders ex-parte without discussing the merits of the case or considering relevant facts and legal provisions. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed the Assessing Officer's disallowances. The disallowances pertained to embossing, fabrications, and fitting charges, invoking Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the disallowances and whether the orders were in compliance with the requirement of a speaking order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri S.S. Godara& Sri M. Balaganesh]

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 958/Kol/2017
I.T.A. No. 960/Kol/2017
I.T.A. No. 959/Kol/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Appearances by: Shri Anurag Sharma, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri A. Bhattacharya, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : June 14th,2018 Date of pronouncing the order : July 18th,2018 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM :- This three assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 & 2013-14 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 9, Kolkata’s separate orders dated 30/03/2016, 29/09/2016 and 27/03/2017 in case nos. 447/CIT(A)- 9/Wd-32(1)/2014-15/Kol & 15/CIT(A)-9/Circle-32/2016-17/Kol; respectively involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) in all the cases.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2 Assessment Year: 2011- Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 959/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ather Perwaize 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A) has passed all the three orders under challenge ex-parte whilst confirming the assessing officer’s action disallowing assessee’s embossing, fabrications and rexine, lining and other fitting charges involving various corresponding sums by invoking section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194 of the Act. It further transpires that the assessee’s latter appeal in I.T.A. No.960/Kol/2017 in the assessment year 2011-12 had sought to revive the very lower appellate proceedings which the CIT(A) had rejected in his similar ex-parte order dt. 30/03/2017 as challenged in I.T.A. No. 958/Kol/2017. The same therefore appears to be a case of duplication of file only in substance.

4.

Learned counsel for the assessee invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s all three orders under challenge upholding the impugned disallowance(es) in both the assessment years without any discussion on merits. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute the fact that the CIT(A) has not considered the relevant facts/nature of payments vis-à-vis application of chapter XVII nor has he considered section 250(6) of the Act providing for points of determination to be followed by a detailed adjudication by way of a speaking order in course of lower appellate proceedings. We therefore restore the instant appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

These three assessee’s appeals are accepted for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 18th day of July, 2018.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →