WHITESTONE SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1430/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 July 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without considering any evidence. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges additions made by the Assessing Officer, including share application money, which were upheld by the CIT(A) ex-parte. The assessee failed to appear on the last date of hearing before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions ex-parte without considering the assessee's evidence and whether the appellate order met the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),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]

order : 04.07.2018 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM :- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 challenges correctness of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata’s order dated 24/03/2017 upholding the Assessing Officer’s action adding its share application money of Rs.67,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) as well as various other additions made in assessment order dated 30/03/2016 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order is passed ex- parte. He record in pages 2 & 3 thereof that he had fixed hearings on 29/09/2016, 22/11/2016, 24/01/2017 & 21/03/2017 in lower appellate proceedings. The said observations reveal that the assessee had applied for adjournment on former three occasions whereas it did not appear on the last date of hearing. This has made the CIT(A) to confirm all the additions including that of unexplained share application money (supra) in question.

1.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Whitestones Sales Pvt. Ltd 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, its authorised person’s affidavit dated 12/06/2018 solemnly affirming therein that he had failed to appeal on the last date of hearing in lower appellate proceedings i.e. 21/03/2017. Coupled with this, it emerges that the CIT(A) has not considered any evidence at all whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making various additions forming subject matter of the dispute between the parties. We make it clear that Section 250(6) of the Act dealing with such lower appellate adjudication stipulates points of determination as well as detailed findings to form part of an appellate authority’s order. We take into account all these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to restore the instant issue back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes in above terms.

Kolkata, the 4th day of July, 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 →