SMT. REENA DAGA,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), BUDWAN, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1301/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 September 2024AY 2014-2015Bench: or at the time of hearing.”5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessees' non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by two assessees against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessees failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause, leading to the ex-parte decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were justified and whether the assessees should be given another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3)/147,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1300/Kol/2024
I.T.A. No. 1301/Kol/2024

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

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: Both the captioned appeals filed by the two different assessees pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2014-15 are directed against the impugned orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A), Indore, dated 31.03.2024 and 28.05.2024 against the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 and 28.05.2014, passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Since the issues in both the appeals are common and order has been passed ex-parte against the assessee. Therefore, both the matters heard together and passed by this common orders. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in “1 For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

2. For that the proceedings initiated u/s 147 and so continued is ab-initio- void bad in law and as such the assessment is liable to be quashed.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO treating the amount paid to Registered broker of National Spot Exchange Ltd. against transaction to be made by appellant amounting to Rs. 10,86,900/- u/s 68 when admittedly all evidences were filed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the AO failed to bring any evidence on record to prove the contrary.

4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 32,607/- u/s 69C of the I.T. Act 1961, whereas he had not any direct evidence of such expenditure against the appellant.

5. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.”

1.

I.T.A. Nos. 1300 & 1301/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Daga Smt. Reena Daga 2.1 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in “1 For that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

2.

For that the proceedings initiated u/s 147 and so continued is ab-initio- void bad in law and as such the assessment is liable to be quashed.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO treating the amount paid to Registered broker of National Spot Exchange Ltd. against transaction to be made by appellant amounting to Rs. 3,65,500/- u/s 68 when admittedly all evidences were filed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the AO failed to bring any evidence on record to prove the contrary.

4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 10,965/- u/s 69C of the I.T. Act 1961, whereas he had not any direct evidence of such expenditure against the appellant.

5.

For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. AR stated that the appeal No. 1300/Kol/2024, there is a delay of 116 days in filing the appeal on the part of the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of such delay stating that due to renal failure, the assessee was on dialysis for long time, the appeal could not be filed in time and there was a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Therefore, such delay may be condoned.

4.

We after considering the petition filed by the assessee, we find that that there is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee due to which assessee could not file the appeal in time, considering the same, we condoned the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

5. Ld. Counsel further stated in both the appeals, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which are ex-parte order as the assessee could not turn up before the Ld. CIT(A) in compliance to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A)

& 1301/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Daga Smt. Reena Daga time to time to the above-named assessee. Therefore, both the orders had been passed ex-parte against the assessee, therefore, he prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so that the assessee can file its necessary submission before the Ld. CIT(A) in order to substantiate its claim. On such prayer made by the AR of the assessee before the Bench, Ld. Departmental Representative does not raise any objection.

6.

We after hearing the rival submission to the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that there is a reasonable cause on the part of above named assessee(s) for non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A) and order had been passed ex-parte against them. It is therefore, interest of natural justice and fair play it is necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee’s are also directed to appear before the authority below as and when notice will be served. In terms of the above, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 9th September, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 09.09.2024. AK, PS & 1301/Kol/2024 Sunil Kumar Daga Smt. Reena Daga Copy of the order forwarded to: 1 Sunil Kumar Daga 2. Smt. Reena Daga 3. Income Tax Officer, Burdwan 4. CIT(A)- 5. CIT- 6. CIT(DR)

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →