SK. MANWAR HOSSAIN,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-3, BERHAMPORE, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 584/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 February 2017AY 2008-20093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee did not cooperate. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the AO for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to produce books of account and substantiate their return before the AO, leading to an ex parte assessment. The CIT(A) also decided the appeal ex parte as the assessee did not prosecute the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT-A was justified in confirming the ex parte assessment order and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(1),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’BENCH,

Before: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dt: 21-11- 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), XXXVI, Kolkata for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The only issue is to be decided as to whether the CIT-A justified in confirming the assessment order ex parte in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

At the time of hearing, neither the assessee nor AR appeared. The ld.DR submits that the assessee in response to the notices U/Sec’s 143(1) and 142(1) of the Act appeared and sought time to produce Books of account, but, however,

IT A No. 584/Kol/14 Sk. Manwar Hossain 1 produced only list of sundry creditors, copies of Bank statement were filed. The assessee did not appear before the AO for hearing to explain the return and the AO made assessment U/Sec. 144 of the Act and determined the income at Rs.12,51,420/-. Ld. DR submits that the assessee challenged the same before CIT-A and did not prosecute the case and accordingly, the CIT-A decided the appeal ex parte against assessee. Ld. DR further submits that inspite of receipt of statutory notices, the assessee failed to explain the return before AO and substantiate the grounds as raised before the CIT-A and referred to the para-1 and para-3 of AO & CIT-A respectively. The ld.DR referred to para-5.1 of CIT-A’s order and argued that the notices sent to sundry creditor were also returned as unserved. The ld.DR submits that it is clear no such material evidence filed before the AO for his consideration in support of Return and urged to remand the issue to AO for examination.

4.

Heard ld.DR and perused the record. We find force in the submissions of ld.DR. It is observed that the assessee has sought time to produce books of account, but did not produce and no representation thereafter before AO. As rightly pointed by the ld.DR that the assessee did not respond to the notices as issued by first appellate authority. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of AO for adjudication and accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

IT A No. 584/Kol/14 Sk. Manwar Hossain 2

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 /02/2017

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →