Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.06.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeals: “Ground 1: That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in passing the Order appealed against in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such order was at all liable to be passed, and the Lad. CITA) erred in confirming the same. Ground 2: That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in making an addition of Rs.1,99,00,000/- u/s. 68 in respect of share Capital raised during the year by issuing 39,800 Equity Shares @ of Rs.500/, including share premium of Rs.490/- per share, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such addition was at all called for and the Ld. CITA) erred in confirming the same.
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd
Ground 3: That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in making an addition of Rs.12,290/ us. 14A r.w.r. 8D in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such addition was at all liable to be made and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Same. Ground 4: That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in charging Interest us. 234B at Rs.23,25, 780/-, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such interest was at all liable to be levied and/or charge of such interest is highly excessive. Ground 5: That the Ld. AO erred in law as well as in facts in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in as much as in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no such initiation was at all called for. Ground 6: That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and/or change any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order. A separate affidavit had been filed by Sri Prakash Kumar Rajgaria, director of the assessee company, wherein, it was deposed that the ld. CIT(A) has fixed the date of hearing during Covid- 19 pandemic and during the said period, the assessee did not receive any notices from the CIT(A). The ld. counsel has further submitted that though, after the Covid-19 pandemic period, an adjournment was sought by the assessee on 20.01.2023, however, the assessee did not receive the notice of the subsequent date of hearing resulting into ex parte order. That the absence before the ld. CIT(A) was not intentional.
4. The ld. DR, however, has submitted that on 20.01.2023, the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee, however, the assessee failed to appear on the next date of hearing and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in passing the ex parte order.
Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd present its case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.