M/S STAINLESS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. LD. I.T.O. WARD 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2085/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 April 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had taken adjournments before the CIT(A) but it could not be presumed that they did not want to pursue the appeal. Since the rights and duties of the assessee were not determined, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 29,07,348/- on account of bogus purchases. The assessee did not file written submissions before the CIT(A) and an ex-parte order was passed confirming the addition. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper adjudication, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

Hearing: 19/04/2017Pronounced: 21/04/2017

O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to the assessment year 2010-2011, is directed against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, in appeal No.170/CIT(A)-2/15-16, dated 18.08.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 29.03.2015.

2.

Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee is a private limited company and has submitted its return of income on 30.09.2010 disclosing total income of Rs.2,62,872/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed U/s 143(1) of the Act on 16.04.2011. Subsequently, it has been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee company had made bogus purchases from 1) Bhagyalaxmi Steel Industries 2) Jineshawar trading company 3) Kushal

M/s Stainless International Pvt.Ltd. Steel Corporation of Rs.25,31,416/-, Rs.3,67,851/- & Rs.8,081/- respectively aggregating to Rs. 29,07,348/- during the F.Y. 2009-10 relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11. In consequences of the observation and above facts, a notice U/s 148 dated 03.02.2014 was issued to the assessee company. The Assessing officer completed the assessment U/s 147/ 143(3) of the Act by making the disallowance of Rs. 29,07,348/- on account of bogus purchase.

3.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has passed the ex-parte order and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee did not file any written submission and used to take adjournment only. On the last date of hearing on dated 05/08/2016, none appeared on behalf of the assessee therefore, the ld CIT(A) passed the exparte order and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer.

4.

Not being satisfied with the order of the ld CIT(A) the assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken the following grounds of appeal:

1.That the ld. AO made addition of Rs.29,07,348/- on account of purchases from (i) M/s Bhagyluxmi Steel Industries (ii) Jeneshawar Trading Company (iii) kaushal Steel Corporation respectively U/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without going through the facts and circumstances of the case and also without considering the material for assessment placed before the ld AO, and the ld CIT(A) conformed the same without giving proper opportunity of being heard which is unjustified, bad in law, against the natural law of justice and craves deletion. 2.THAT the AO, initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is unjustified and against the natural of justice.

5.At the out set, the ld AR for the assessee has submitted that the assessee used to take adjournments and did not file any written

M/s Stainless International Pvt.Ltd. submissions before ld CIT(A). The assessee could not attend the office of the ld CIT(A) because of certain reasons and requested the Bench to remit the matter back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Even ld DR for the Revenue did not object about the propositions of the ld AR for the assessee.

6.

Having heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we noticed that assessee used to take adjournments during the appellate proceedings before the ld CIT(A), therefore, it can not be presumed that assessee did not want to pursue the appeal. Since the rights and duties of the assessee has not been determined by the ld CIT(A) therefore, we are of the view to remit the case back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 21/04/2017.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →