SNOWDROP VINCOM PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1035/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2024AY 2010-2011Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in financial activities, had its income assessed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, with significant additions made under Sections 68 and 69C. The appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to non-compliance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the AO and CIT(A) when orders were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 68,Section 69C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

All the appeals are preferred by the assessee against the separate order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)], dated 22.02.2024 & 23.02.2024 where in the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the separate assessment orders passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act dated 08.11.2016 and 18.10.2017 and u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 26.04.2018 and to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 12.05.2017 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Since the issues are common in all the appeals, hence are taken up together for disposal.

2.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition which is reproduced as under:

3.

First of all we shall adjudicate the assessee’s appeal in and 1039/Kol/2024 for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12.

4.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of investment and trading in shares, securities, bonds, loans and advances and other financial activities. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7,450/-. An assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 08.11.2016 and AO added an amount of Rs. 1,78,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Subsequently, one more assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act was passed by the AO on 18.10.2017 after making addition of Rs. 3,51,09,552/- u/s 69C of the Act. An assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act dated 21.12.2018 and 28.11.2016 the AO added an amount of Rs. 36,61,61,900/- and Rs. 5,28,23,495/- u/s 68 of the Act.

5.

The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing two appeals wherein the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 22.02.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance by the assessee during appellate proceedings.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred the above four appeals.

6.

The Ld. Counsel in stead of arguing into merit of the case has only submitted that the assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case before the AO as the order passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that the assessee has sufficient documentary evidences to substantiate his claim before the AO hence in the interest of justice the assessee has been given an opportunity to place his case before the AO.

7.

The Ld. D.R supports the impugned order. to 1040/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Snowdrop Vincom Pvt. Ltd.

8.

We have perused the order of AO and the Ld. CIT(A) find that the AO has passed the order in both assessment year in absence of the assessee as the assessee did not turn up in spite of issuing of notices u/s 148. We have also perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and find that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed as the assessee was remained non-compliant during appellate proceedings. Keeping in view the facts of the case and considering the submission made by the assessee, in the interest of justice we are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the AO. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside and record is restored in the file of AO. The AO is directed to pass the order afresh after hearing the assessee.

9.

Now we shall adjudicate the assessee’s penalty appeal in & 1040/Kol/2024 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Issue raised in these appeal are similar to one as decided by us in above appeals i.e. 1036,1038 & 1039/Kol/2024 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 as it has been passed in absence of the assessee, therefore, our decision in 1035, 1036,1038 & 1039/Kol/2024 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 would mutatis mutandis, apply to these appeals as well. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Above records are also restored in the file of A.O. to decide afresh. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2024

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →