Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Falguni Nirman Private Ltd. -vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Kolkata Midnapore [PAN : AAACF 9395 A) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri David Z.Chawngthu, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 09.11.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02.12.2015 of CIT-(A)- 11, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2010-11.
The Assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase and sale of land. For A.Y.2010-11 an order of assessment dated 20.03.2013 was passed by the AO determining the total income after making the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- to the income returned by the assessee. The addition was made consequent to the disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) viz., expenditure incurred in cash beyond Rs.20,000/-.
Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). A perusal of the order of CIT(A) shows that he issued a notice of hearing of the appeal on 30.10.2015 fixing the appeal for hearing on 20.11.2015. According to the order of CIT(A) on 20.11.2015 none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment requested was made. The CIT(A) therefore decided the appeal on merits
Before us the ld. Counsel for the assessee after pointing out the above facts submitted that the assessee never received notice of hearing from CIT(A) and therefore there was no occasion for the assessee to appear before CIT(A) on 20.11.2015. It was also submitted by him that only one hearing was afforded by CIT(A) and it cannot be considered as adequate and proper opportunity of being heard. His first prayer was that order of CIT(A) should be set aside and various grounds raised by the assessee before CIT(A) should be directed to be decided by CIT(A) on merits after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. An affidavit of one of the directors of the assessee was also filed in support of the contention that notice of hearing was never received by the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A).
Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that there was lack of opportunity of being heard afforded by CIT(A) to the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand for fresh consideration by CIT(A) of all the various grounds raised by the assessee before CIT(A) after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 17.11.2017.