Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ]
Shri Sandeep Saria -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : ALEPS 2101 B] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 30.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2018. ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.09.2017 of CIT(A)- 10, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2011-12.
The Assessee is an individual.. He derives income from business of trading and manufacturing of engineering goods, spare parts etc. For A.Y.2011-12 the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.31,54,173/-. An order of assessment was passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.40,54,970/-.
3. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) challenging various additions made by the AO in the order of assessment. According to the CIT(A) the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on several occasions and notice of hearing sent to the assessee were returned unserved. The CIT(A) had also mentioned in his order that the assessee had not informed the change of address and therefore the appeal was being decided on the basis of material available on record. The CIT(A) found no grounds with the order of the AO and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal :
Shri Sandeep Saria A.Yr.2011-12 “1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
2. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in passing the appellate order exparte without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and further no notice fixing the hearing of the case was served on the assessee.
For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 174391/- being 25% of the conveyance expenses fully incurred for business purposes , no discrepancy was found in the self made vouchers and in the very nature of expenses only self made vouchers are being kept.
4. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 3,31,118/- being the carriage inward and outward charges when the provisions of sec. 194C as well as section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable on these payments.
5. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing Rs. 165,1261- being 25% of wages and bonus expenses fully incurred for business purposes , no discrepancy was found in the self made vouchers and in the very nature of expenses only self made vouchers are being kept.
6. For that the Ld. C.I.T(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adding back Rs. 2,30,159/- being credit card expenses when no such expenses were claimed in the profit and loss account
7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the disallowance of Rs. 174391/-, Rs. 331118/-, Rs. 165126/- and Rs. 230159/- were not justified.
For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) be modified and the assessee be given the relief prayed for.
For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.”
I have heard the rival submissions and submissions on ground no.2 raised by the assessee before the tribunal. The address for service of the assessee remains the same as was given by the assessee in Form No.,35 filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). It was stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee continues to reside in the aforesaid address viz. Sunflower Apartments, 74, Topsia Road, Kolkata-700046. The 2
Shri Sandeep Saria A.Yr.2011-12 ld. Counsel also submitted that no notice were served on the assessee. He was unable to comment as to why notices were returned unserved on the assessee. I am of the view that the assessee did not have proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A). I, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand for consideration afresh by CIT(A) the various grounds raised by the assessee before CIT(A) on merits after affording opportunity of being heard. I hold and order accordingly.
6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court 02.02.2018.