PRADIP GOSWAMI,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 749/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 February 2017AY 2008-20093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee contended that they did not receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the CIT(A)'s order was unjust and arbitrary.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing is valid. Whether the estimation and addition of income by the CIT(A) were arbitrary and without tangible evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH,KOLKATA

Before: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR

ORDER Per Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in short [ Ld. CIT(A), Durgapur dated 27-03-2015 on the following grounds:- 1. For that passing of best judgement Appellate order by Ld. CITA is unjust and bad in law since the Appellant did not get any reasonable opportunity of hearing. Hence such order is liable to be set aside.

2. For that estimation and enhancement of net profit from reasonable 4.51 % to 8.1 is unjust and arbitrary since it is on estimated basis without any tangible evidences of earning of actual profit by the Appellant. Hence such estimation is liable to be deleted.

3. For that Appellant had all the Books of accounts and other supporting documents but failed to produce so being beyond his control and possession. So Appellant IS now in a position to substantiate the declared net profit in return by producing relevant documents.

4. For that addition of Rs. 906842/- is unjust and illegal since such amount was on capital introduction account and A.O. can not call for the source of said

5. For that Appellant furnished cogent explanation about the source of said amount but was disbelieved in quite arbitrary manner.

6. For that Appellant may modify the grounds.

2. We have perused the case records. We find that at the first appellate stage there was no appearance by the assessee and the order passed ex parte. Therefore, the rights and liabilities were not determined by the CIT(A) since order passed exparte. Therefore, there was no adjudication since no one appeared for the assessee and also for the department. Under these circumstances, we arrive at our considered view for proper determination of rights and liabilities this case should be set aside back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication after hearing the parties and direct the assessee that this the final opportunity granted to him for pleading his case and to appear before the CIT(A). After hearing the parties, the CIT(A) may adjudicate the case as per law. We order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →