M/S. PINGLE COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. WARD-52), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1235/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 December 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The ex parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed late due to not receiving hearing notices from the CIT(A), which were allegedly sent to the spam folder. The CIT(A) orders were ex parte. The additions were made on account of unexplained cash credit/share application money.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) orders passed ex parte without proper service of notice to the assessee are valid. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No.1235/Kol/2024
I.T.A. No.1229/Kol/2024
I.T.A. No.1230/Kol/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

1.

& 1229/Kol/2024 for Assessment Years (AY) 2012- 14 and 2013-14 respectively have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 26.07.2023 and 17.11.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) relating to the quantum additions, whereas has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.11.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed in the appeal against the levy of penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

Since facts are identical, issues are common in all the appeals, hence, we dispose of all the captioned appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3.

& 1230/Kol/2024 are time barred by 134 days and 248 days. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in all the appeals to submit that the same are ex parte orders of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that no notice of the dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) was ever received by the assessee in physical mode. That the alleged notices were sent through e-mail which went to spam box of the assessee’s mail and could not be noticed, resulting into non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been further submitted that even the assessee did not receive the final order of the Ld. CIT(A) resulting into the aforesaid delay in filing the appeals. Considering the aforesaid facts, we condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.

& 1235/Kol/2024: 4. The assessee in AY 2012-13 has contested the addition of Rs.5,75,00,000/- and in for AY 2013-14 has contested the addition of Rs.1,42,50,000/- made/confirmed by the lower authorities on account of unexplained cash credit/share application money received by the assessee.

5.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, inviting our attention to the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A), has submitted that in both the cases, the aforesaid orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex parte orders. He has further submitted that, in fact, no physical notice for date of hearing was ever received by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further inviting our attention to the impugned assessment orders has submitted that the additions have been made by the AO in these cases mainly because the assessee could not produce the directors of the shareholders despite notices issued to them by the AO u/s. 131 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) and, if so, required the assessee is also ready to produce the directors of the share subscribers.

6.

Considering the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and after hearing the Ld. DR, we are of the view that interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are accordingly, set aside and the matter in both the appeals is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). It is directed that the assessee will duly check its e-mail box regarding notices, if any, sent by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding dates of hearing and will promptly appear and present its case as and when called for by the Ld. CIT(A). With the above observations, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

: 7. In this appeal, the assessee has agitated the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The basis of the impugned penalty is the impugned addition made by the AO in respect of the share capital as discussed above in ITA No. 1229/Kol/2024. Since we have set aside the matter relating to the quantum addition to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, this appeal relating to penalty is also set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the ITA No. 1229/Kol/2024.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →