Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM:
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1, Kolkata dt. 02-03-2017 for the A.Y 2012-13.
At the time of hearing before us the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee intends to withdraw the appeal and urged to permit the assessee to withdraw the same. On the other hand, the ld.DR has not objected to such request of the ld.AR. In view of above, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-01-2018 Sd/- Sd/- J. Sudhakar Reddy S.S. Viswanethra Ravi Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 31-01-2018 PP(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. 1. Appellant/Assessee: M/s. ACME Resources Limited 166 Post Bara Bazar, Cotton Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700007. 2 Respondent :The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, 7th Floor, Kolkata-700 069.
3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /True Copy, By order,
Sr.PS/H.O.O ITAT Kolkata IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y: 2009-10 Arunanshu Mondal Vs. I.T.O., Ward 58(4), Kolkata PAN: AKKPM1020E [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Adj. Petition filed, rejected Shri Amiya Bhattacharjee, Staff appeared For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Date of hearing : 01-01-2018 Date of pronouncement : 31-01-2018
ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM:
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 21, Kolkata dt. 18-02-2016 for the A.Y 2009-10, wherein he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 17,634/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO by ex-parte.
2. The only issue to be decided as to whether the CIT-A ex parte is justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.17,634/- imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. At the time of hearing before us, one, Mr. Amiya Bhattacharya, claiming to be as staff of the assessee filed an adjournment application dt. 01-01-2018 along with medical prescriptions in respect of Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, Advocate and sought an adjournment due to health problems of Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, Advocate, who is engaged as ld.AR in this appeal is unwell and going to Bangalore for better treatment and in view of above, prayed to adjourn the case to any date after one month.
The ld. DR submits that the assessee did not appear before he CIT-A and also failed to give proper explanation in cancelling the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for non explanation, the AO was justified in imposing the same, which was confirmed by the CIT-A by ex parte. After perusing the case record and hearing the ld.DR, we dismiss the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record.
On perusal of records, we find that neither the assessee nor any representative on behalf of the assessee appeared before the CIT-A to prosecute his case by rendering proper explanation. According to CIT-A, the assessee availed opportunities of being heard, but he failed to submit any evidence or explanation to substantiate his claim as made in the grounds of appeal. We find that before the CIT-A there was no proper representation or explanation on behalf of the assessee in cancelling the impugned penalty and in substantiating his claim by any evidence and explanation. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee, facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of natural justice one more opportunity should be given by the CIT-A to the assessee to substantiate his claim. In view of above, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of the CIT-A to decide the issue in hand afresh by giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed not to seek any adjournment. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences and explanation in support of his contention and claim.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-01-2018