PRASANTA K. BHATTACHARYA, HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KOLKATA, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2308/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 November 2017AY 2010-20113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additions/disallowances were made ad-hoc and without proper consideration of merits. It noted that an addition was made under Section 69 for expenses already recorded in the books, which is incorrect. The assessee was also prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss, but the Assessing Officer made significant additions due to the assessee's non-cooperation, with notices being returned undelivered. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions/disallowances were made judiciously and on merits, and whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 30/06/2016, for the Assessment Years 2010-11.

2.

There is a delay of 83 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of delay. I am convinced that the 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Prasanta Kumar Bhattacharya assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time, hence the delay is condoned and the appeal admitted.

3.

The assessee is an individual and carries on business of saw milling, wheat business, bani milling etc. and running a cold storage unit. He filed his return of income 27/09/2010, declaring loss of Rs.1,01,95,300/-. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act, determining the total income Rs.5,84,528/-. In this order he records that the notices sent by the postal authorities to the assessee were returned back with remarks “left/insufficient address”. He passed an order making huge additions as the assessee has not co- operated in the proceedings.

3.1. The ld. CIT(A), also passed an ex-parte order.

4.

After hearing rival contentions, I find that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), has not considered the issues properly on merits. All the additions/disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without reference to any material on record. It is well settled that even a best judgment, assessment should be judicious. In fact and addition has been made u/s 69 of the Act, for expenses which are already recorded in the books, which is not correct in law. Such disallowance has to be deleted. The assesse has demonstrated that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities on the dates of posting.

3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Prasanta Kumar Bhattacharya 5. In view of the above discussion, on the ground of natural justice, I deem it fit and proper to set aside this assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The assessee shall co-operate in the assessment proceedings. Kolkata, the 8th day of November, 2017. Sd/- [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Accountant Member Dated : 08.11.2017 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Prasanta Kumar Bhattacharya C/o S. N. Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist:- Hooghly PIN – 712 101 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Kolkata Aaykar Bhawan, Hooghly G.T. Road Khadina More P.O. Chinsurah P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly PIN – 712 101

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

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →