SHRI RAM SWAROOP BAJAJ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD.36(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an opportunity to reply to the remand report, and therefore, the matter requires fresh examination. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions on account of interest and unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to reply to the remand report.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee an opportunity to reply to the remand report before deciding the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
O R D E R
Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 287 CIT(A)-10/Wd-36 (1)/14-15/ Kol dated 30.11.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 14.03.2014.
Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 04.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs. 1,81,730/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act and the AO has completed the assessment by making addition on account of interest at Rs. 1,68,000/- and unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Rs. 7,50,000/-.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) who has confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not give opportunity to the assessee to reply the remand report which was taken by the Ld. CIT(A) from the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee filed similar documents for assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 before the ld. CIT(A).The Assessee could not produce certain documents before the Assessing Officer for the assessment year under consideration and the said documents, are now available with him and will be submitted by him before the ld CIT(A). Further, the assessee has produced certain documents and evidences before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) and Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) sent these documents to the Assessing Officer to make the remand report. After getting the remand report the assessee wanted to submit his rejoinder but the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to submit the rejoinder and reply to the remand report. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested the Bench to send the entire matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. The Ld. DR for the Revenue did not controvert the proposal made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to send the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) to decide the appeal afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee for hearing.
Considering the factual position explained above, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, this issue requires afresh examination at the end of the Ld. CIT(A), as the assessee did not get an opportunity to reply the remand report of the assessing officer. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the file of the ldCIT(A) to adjudicate the assessee`s appeal afresh. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.08.2017 and for that, no separate notice will be issued to the assessee. This is to ensure that the assessee should participate in the
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07/ 07/2017. Sd/- Sd/- (A.T. Varkey) (DR. A.L.SAINI) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता/Kolkata; �दनांक Dated 07/ 07/2017. SB, Sr. PS. आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Assessee-Ram Swaroop Bajaj 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent.- ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata 3. आयकरआयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Kolkata. 4. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण, कोलकाता/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 5. 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard file. स�या�पत��त //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,
Senior Private Secretary Head of Office/D.D.O., I.T.A.T., Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026