M/S SANJAY & COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-26, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 894/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 January 2018AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's assistance was required for proper adjudication. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after taking into account the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's representative claimed they were not informed of the hearing dates by the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. The Revenue argued that ample opportunities were provided and the assessee's staff had appeared on previous occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without proper representation from the assessee. The need for the assessee's assistance in adjudicating the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate, ld.AR
For Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.DR

All these appeals by the Assessee are against the separate orders dt. 24-02-2016 and 23-02-2016 of the CIT-(A), 7, Kolkata for the A.Y’s : 2008-09 to 2011-12. Since the issues raised and facts involved in all the appeals are common, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the appeals were heard together and disposed of of the same by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

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

3.

First, we shall take up the appeal- A.Y 2008-09- by the assessee.

4.

The ld.AR submits that in response to notice issued by the CIT-A, the staff of the authorized representative appeared before the CIT-A and sought time. Thereafter, the assessee received notices – 897/Kol/2016 2 M/s. Sanjay & Co.

from the CIT-A, but, unfortunately, the date of hearing could not be informed to AR. The AR having no knowledge of the date of hearing, could not represent the appeal before the CIT-A, which was neither willful nor intentional, in view of above, prayed to remand the matter to the file of the CIT-A for his fresh consideration.

5.

The ld.DR submits that the CIT-A has given ample opportunities to the assessee and the argument of the AR that the then AR of the assessee was not in knowledge the dates of hearing and referred to page-2 of the order of the CIT-A and argued that on two occasions the staff of the AR appeared before the CIT-A and sought time before him. Therefore, the statements made by the ld.AR before this Tribunal is incorrect. The CIT-A has given ample opportunities in adjourning the case reasonably after one or two months and in view of above, he prayed to dismiss the appeals of the assessee.

6.

Heard both the parties and perused the record. We find that the assessment in this case was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act, inter-alia making addition of Rs.89,17,216/- on account of unsecured loan. We find that the assistance of the assessee is required in adjudicating the issue involved in the appeals before the CIT-A. Therefore, in view of above, taking into consideration the submissions of the ld. AR and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of the CIT-A for his fresh adjudication. The CIT-A shall pass a fresh order, as per law, after taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee. The assessee is also directed not to seek any adjournment. Therefore, the grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. The appeal of the assessee- A.Y 2008- 09 is allowed for statistical purpose. – 897/Kol/2016

3. M/s. Sanjay & Co. to 897/Kol/2016 for A.Y’s: 2009-10 to 2011-12 by the assessee.

7.

Since the issue involved in these appeals are same and identical, except variance in amount of addition, to the appeal in A.Y 2008-09, which we have already disposed remanding the matter to the file of the CIT-A on the same set of facts and circumstances. In view of our decision given in for the A.Y 2008-09, we remand the matter to the file of CIT-A involved in these appeals. Therefore, all the grounds raised in ITA Nos. 895 to 897/Kol/2016 for the A.Y’s: 2009-10 to 2011-12- by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. The appeals of the assessee ITA Nos. 895 to 897/Kol/2016 for the A.Ys: 2009-10 to 2011-12- are allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee to 897Kol/2016 for the A.Ys 2008-09 to 2011-12 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-01-2018 Sd/- Sd/- M. Balaganesh S.S. Viswanethra Ravi Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated : 12-01-2018 – 897/Kol/2016 4 M/s. Sanjay & Co.

PP(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. Appellant/Assessee : M/s. Sanjay & Company, D-166, Amar Singh Apartment, Trenching Ground Road, Garden Reach, Kolkata-24. 2 Respondent/Revenue : The ACIT, Cir 26,, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69.

3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →