Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH,KOLKATA
Before: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini
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), 23, Kolkata dated 1st February, 2016 on the following grounds:- 1) That from the faces and circumstances of the case it is fit for preferring appeal. 2) That non-allowance of Depreciation on Computer as per schedule is unjustified, unlawful. 3) That addition under the head Income from undisclosed source Rs.14,48,000/- is absurd and untenable. The Director and members of the company in time of need provided loan and advances not exceeding Rs.1,50,000/-. This Rs.14,48,000/- is the rotation of Rs.1,50,000/-. 4) That the assessee craves leave of adducing any other evidences at any state of this appeal procedure.
The brief facts appearing in this case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration i.e 2007-08 on 11-10-2007 showing total loss of Rs.29,406. Processing was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Eventually the case was selected for scrutiny assessment as per CASS AST Module. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on Ambes Aqua Pvt. Ltd 28.07.2008 and duly served on the assessee. In response to which, ld. A/R of the assessee company appeared from time to time and filed details/particulars. The assessee company engaged in the business of manufacturing of packaged drinking water on behalf of various concerns as job work. The assessee maintained regular books of account which were produced for verification during the course of assessment proceedings along with various documentary evidences, which are examined and test checked by the AO. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act with total assessed income at Rs.14,86,320/-.
At the time of hearing before us none appeared on behalf of assessee. We have perused the case records. We find that at the first appellate stage there was no appearance by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the rights and liabilities were not determined by the CIT(A) since order passed exparte. The stand of the assessee was not put forward before him. 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. We order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06-02-2017