PRADIP KUMAR GHOSH,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4),BURDWAN, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2339/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 February 2017AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent during the hearing before the CIT(A), and the First Appellate Authority did not adjudicate the assessee's rights and liabilities. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in a rice mill business, had his assessment completed with an increased income. The addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made on account of unexplained cash credit, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit was justified, and whether the ex-parte action of the CIT(A) was lawful.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri M.Balaganesh., AM & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM]

ORDER

Per Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM

1.

1. This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of ld. CIT(A)- Durgapur dated 18.12.2012 on the following grounds of appeal.

1. FOR THAT the ex-parte action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Durgapur of sustaining the addition in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- made on the specious pretext of "unexplained cash credit" by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Burdwan without any proof is ab initio void, ultra vires, and ex-facie null in law.

2. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Durgapur acted unlawfully in upholding the action of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Burdwan of resorting to the impugned addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- being the amount of genuine loan received from Shri Ramprasad Chattoraj treating it as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the appellant without adducing any adverse evidence on record and his alleged findings on that behalf are altogether arbitrary, unwarranted and perverse.

3. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Durgapur misdirected himself in law in upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- made under the specious application of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Burdwan without considering that the evidence relating to the nature and sources of loan in the instant case were conclusively proved by the facts beyond reasonable doubt and the purported finding of disbelieving its genuinity on extraneous issues not amenable to reason is wholly illegal, illegitimate and infirm in law.

4. FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope and ambit of the provisions of s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the identity of the Loan creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction being proved by the appellant, the purported finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Burdwan upholding the impugned addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Burdwan on Shri Pradip Kr Ghosh A.Yr.2006-07 the specious allegation of "unexplained cash credit" by rejecting such immaculate evidence adduced on record is completely unfounded, unjustified and untenable in law.”

2.

The brief facts appearing in this case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of running a rice mill under the trade name and style of “Gadadhar Rice Mill. The assesee filed its return for A.Y.2006-07 on 16.10.2006 declaring total income of Rs.2,68,000/-. The case was eventually taken up for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein notices u/s 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were issued and duly served. In response to the said notices the AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and produced books of account, bills and vouchers, bank statements and relevant papers and other information as had been called for. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act with assessed income arriving at Rs.5,75,430/-.

3.

At the very outset, we observed on perusal of the case records that at the time of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) none was present for the assessee. The rights and liabilities of the assessee were not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. That without the finding of the First Appellate Authority it would not be appropriate to appreciate the entire facts and circumstances. Therefore to meet the ends of justice we deem it fit and proper to send this case back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and direct the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT(A) for determination of its rights and liabilities in this case. The service of notices is dispensed with. We order accordingly.

4.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 02.02.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- [M.Balaganesh] [ Partha Sarathi Chaudhury ] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 02 . 02.2017. [RG PS]

Shri Pradip Kr Ghosh A.Yr.2006-07 Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Sri Pradip Kumar Ghosh, C/o Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Seven Brothers’Lodge, P.O.Buroshibtala, P.S.Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly.Pin-712 105.

2. I.T.O., Ward-1(4) Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-Durgapur 4. CIT-Durgapur. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →