ROTOMAC ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-8(2), KOL, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1403/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 February 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without properly adjudicating the assessee's rights. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return of income which was processed and selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order as the assessee did not attend the final hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and whether the denial of deduction under Section 10B was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 234B,Section 234C

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 Appellant: Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocate, ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Alok Nag, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ in short [ Ld. CIT(A)], 1, Kolkata dated 31-05-2016 on the following grounds:-

1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld.C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

2. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld.C.I.T.(A) without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and ignoring related evidences which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in not considering the merit of the case, covered by order of the appellate authority for the previous assessment years, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

4. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and not allowing deduction u/s.10B of the I.T. Act on gross total income amounting to Rs.30, 18,455/­which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

5. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and in not allowing exemption u/s.10B as income from other Rotomac Electricals P.Ltd source amounting to Rs.11,26,398/­ which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

6.

For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in dittoing the order of the A.O. and in treating the interest income as income from other source in place of business income amounting to Rs.11,26,398/­ which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

7.

For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.LT.(A) was wrong in not considering the fact that the income from other source also relates to export business, therefore, the said amount of Rs.11 ,26,398/ ­ is also eligible for deduction u/ s. 10B, so the A.O. should have allowed deduction u/s. 10B on gross total income as the gross total income relates to export, therefore, the computation of total income made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

8.

For that the interest u/s. 234B & 234C charged mechanically is wrong & illegal.

9.

That the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.

2.

The brief facts appearing in this case are that the assessee company filed its original return of income electronically on 28-09- 2010 showing total income Nil. The return was processed on 07/07/2011 and selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued on 24-08-2011 and 26-07- 2012 respectively and duly served on the assessee company. Further, in response to these notices, the ld.AR of the assessee appeared from time to time along with details and documents as and when required and explained the return with reference to the papers filed. However, the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act with total assessed income at Rs.11,26,400/-.

3.

We have perused the case records herein. We find that in the order of the ld. CIT(A), it is stated the assessee was given another opportunity fixing the hearing on 23-05-2016, when another request was made by the ld. AR of the assessee for providing further time and hearing was adjourned for 30-05-2016, but on the appointed date none attended. Under the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee does not want to pursue this appeal. Therefore, the ld.

Rotomac Electricals P.Ltd CIT(A) went on to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of material available on record. The order, therefore, passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The rights and liabilities of the assessee were not adjudicated by the 1st appellate authority. We, therefore, arrive at our considered view to set aside this case back to the file of the CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09-02-2017

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →