SALT LAKE SECTOR-II, F.L. OFF SHOP,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-51(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 805/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 December 2017AY 2010-20113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A) and that the Assessing Officer had not granted sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The assessee contended that they did not have sufficient time to respond to the Assessing Officer's queries and that the CIT(A) order was also ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and if non-appearance before the CIT(A) was due to a sufficient cause.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey]

Salt Lake Sector-II, F.L. Off Shop…...…….………………………………………………….………..Appellant Shop No. 70, BJ Market Sector-II Salt Lake City Kolkata – 700 091 [PAN : AAWFS 8570 M] The Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(4), Kolkata………………………………………..…..Respondent Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances by: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri David Z. Chawngthu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 05, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : December 15, 2017 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 09/01/2015, for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer called for information from the assessee on the proposed disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act, at the fag end of the limitation period and the assessee did not have sufficient time to explain the case and the disallowance was made u/s 40A(3) of the Act, without verifying the facts. He pointed out that the ld. First Appellate Authority, had also passed an ex-parte order, on the ground that there was non-compliance by the assessee. He prayed that the assessee had been regularly appearing before the Revenue Authorities and that non-consideration of evidences is incorrect.

2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Salt Lake Sector-II, F.L. Off Shop 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, opposed the contentions and submitted that the assessee is having a long history of non-compliance with the Department and that he is in the habit of not appearing and co-operating with the Revenue in any of the proceedings.

4.

After hearing rival contentions, we hold that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ld. First Appellate Authority. It was submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that one of the partners of the assessee was having ill health. It is also a fact that the Assessing Officer has not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

4.1. Under these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to set aside this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to produce necessary evidence and documents in support of his contentions.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 40A(3)

All 3,278 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →