What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity.

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that additional evidence was admitted in violation of Rule 46A and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to respond. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following the prescribed procedure and without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to comment.

ITO vs M/S Dalhousie Exchange | ITAT Kolkata 2018

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

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

The Income Tax Officer, Ward 33(1), Kolkata.…...…………………………….…….……...Appellant 10B, Middleton Row 3rd Floor Kolkata – 700 071 [PAN : AAFFM 5013 Q] M/s. Dalhousie Exchange.....…………….………………………………..……………………..…. Respondent 13F, Russel Street Kolkata – 700 071 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 20th, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : January 19th , 2018

O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/12/2015, for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice through the Department. Earlier also there was no compliance from the assessee. Under these circumstances, we dispose of this case ex-parte, qua the assessee on merits, after hearing the ld. D/R.

The prime contention of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’). It is also submitted that the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity to express his view on the additional evidences taken on record by the ld. CIT(A).

2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Dalhousie Exchange 4. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A), and restore this case to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITO, WD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S DALHOUSIE EXCHANGE, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments