JAGANNATH JAISWAL,ITO, WARD-40(2) vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), KOLKATA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Gwalior, dated 17.10.2023 arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019, passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act.
I.T.A. No. 1404/Kol/2023 Jagannath Jaiswal 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing. 2 (a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the validity of re-opening proceedings u/s 147 which was without jurisdiction and as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law. (b) For that the purported approval as per the provisions of sec. 151 was either not obtained or the same was not fulfilling the requirement of law, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 8% u/s 44AD amounting to Rs. 59,09,761/- 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”
At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and assessee did not get any opportunity to represent its case properly. Therefore, another opportunity may be given to the assessee so that assessee can represent its case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to such prayer made by the AR of the assessee, he stated that ample opportunities have been given to the assessee before passing such impugned order. However, the assessee nor its representative filed any response in compliance to the notices issued by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has no other alternative but to pass as an ex-parte order. After hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. Although notices were served upon the assessee but AR of the assessee did not represent the case properly and due
I.T.A. No. 1404/Kol/2023 Jagannath Jaiswal to this reason an ex-parte order was passed against the assessee. We after considering the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice find it necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when notice for hearing issued from Ld. CIT(A) without any fail. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 24th July, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- [Sanjay Awasthi] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 24.07.2024. AK, PS
I.T.A. No. 1404/Kol/2023 Jagannath Jaiswal Copy of the order forwarded to: 1 Jagannath Jaiswal 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 40(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
