BASUKI COMMERCIAL & FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 979/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 June 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's assistance was required to substantiate claims related to additions made by the AO. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT-A for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT-A was dismissed ex parte. The assessee claimed they did not receive any notice from the CIT-A, thus lacking an opportunity to present their case and evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT-A was justified in passing an ex parte order without affording the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, AM

For Appellant: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA &
For Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

This appeal by the Assessee is against the order dt. 25-04-2018 of the CIT-A, 16, Kolkata for the A.Y 2012-13, wherein he dismissed the appeal of assessee by ex parte.

2.

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A is justified in passing ex parte order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The ld. AR submits that no notice or whatsoever received from the CIT-A, thereby, the assessee has no opportunity to support its ground of appeal raised in the first appellate proceeding by filing requisite evidence and explanation. Without affording sufficient opportunity to assessee, the CIT-A confirmed the order of AO, which is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The AO determined the total income of assessee at Rs.95,30,370/- vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) dt. 24-03- 2015 by making the following additions:- i) share capital u/s. 68 of the Act Rs.95,00,000/- ii) disallowance u/s. 14A Rs. 25,967/-, and iii) donation Rs. 3,0000 = Rs.95,30,370/-

4. The above order of the AO was challenged before the CIT-A. He further submits that assessee did not file any submissions and paper book details before the CIT-A. But, the CIT-A mentioned in his order that the assessee filed various documents along with paper book, which is incorrect and prayed to remand the issue involved in the appeal to the file of CIT-A for his fresh adjudication.

5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that the AO has made the impugned additions for want of explanation and evidence. In support of the claims and contentions, the assessee has failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions before the AO. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure relating to exempt income. The assessee has not made any compliance in response to notice issued by the CIT-A and the CIT-A was justified in confirming the order of the AO.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the record. It is observed from the order of the CIT-A that the assessee said to have been filed various documents along with paper book. But, however, the ld.AR controverted the same that these were not filed before the CIT-A. We find that since the AO made the additions u/s. 68 & 14A of the Act and the assistance of assessee is required to substantiate its claim and contention. In such circumstances, taking into consideration the submissions of ld.AR and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT-A for his fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh order as per law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The assessee is directed not to seek any adjournment and shall co-operate with the CIT-A in the first appellate proceedings for speedy disposal of the case by filing requisite evidences and explanation in support of the contention and claim. Therefore, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, the appeal of assessee- A.Y 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15-06-2018

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →