Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH : KOLKATA
Before: Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ]
ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM
This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Kolkata [ in short the ld CITA] in Appeal No. 1044/CIT(A)-13/Wd-42(2)/2014-15/Kol dated 21.08.2015 against the order passed by the ITO, Ward-42(2), Kolkata [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 14.12.2011 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
We find that though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the preliminary ground to be adjudicated is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of handling, maintaining, cleaning of aircrafts etc. The main business of the 2 Star Consortium A.Yr.2009-10 firm was with Kingfisher Airlines Limited and the other companies to whom such services were rendered by the assessee were Star Consortium Aviation services Pvt. Ltd., Spicejet etc. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had reported total income of Rs. 3,31,50,625/- from Aircrafts handling and cleaning charges and other income of Rs. 8,36,938/- totaling to Rs. 3,39,87,563/-. But in Form No. 26AS of the assessee, the gross receipts were reflected at Rs. 5,54,23,156/-. The assessee was asked to explain the difference of Rs. 2,14,35,593/- (55423156 – 33987563) towards understated receipts. The assessee explained that the said differential amount of Rs. 2,14,35,593/- was not their income and the discrepancy had occurred due to wrong data/information filed by the Airlines. It further stated that the ground handling business was taken over by Star Consortium Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. from 1st June, 2008 and the said differential amount relates to the said company and not to assessee. The assessee also stated that they had not claimed any credit for TDS on these amounts which are reflected in Form No. 26AS. The assessee also furnished certain copies of communications held with the Airlines showing transfer of business and other related matters. The Ld. AO however not convinced with the replies given by the assessee proceeded to complete the assessment by adding the alleged understatement of receipts in the sum of Rs. 2,14,35,593/- and completed the assessment. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The office of the Ld. CIT(A) had issued several notices on 11.08.2014, 30.10.2014, 26.02.2015 and 23.07.2015 and none appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) in response to the said notices. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR argued that the assessee had changed its address from 26, R.B.C. Road, 2nd Floor, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700028 to C/o Shri Partha Bhattacharjee, 1/9B, East Mall Road, Kolkata-700080. He also informed that the assessee firm had been closed due to consequential closure of business of Kingfisher Airlines Limited. He prayed for one opportunity to be given to the assessee firm before the Ld. CIT(A) as the notices were 2
3 Star Consortium A.Yr.2009-10 not served in the proper address of the assessee. In response to this, the Ld. DR fairly aggrieved for setting aside of this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the issue on merits. We find that the issue requires to be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in view of the arguments advanced by both the parties. The assessee is directed to make appearance before the ld CITA on 6.11.2017 and not take any adjournment except in bona fide and exceptional circumstances and assist the ld CITA in expeditious disposal of this appeal. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 17.10.2017