Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
O R D E R
Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM
The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, in Appeal No.1320/CIT(A)-2/14-15, dated 26.07.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short the ‘Act’), dated 03.03.2014.
Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.23,95,270/-. Asessee’s case was selected for scrutiny u/s.143(3) of the Act and the AO has completed the assessment by making the various additions. 3. Aggrieved from the order of the AO, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of fact that assessee did not file any statement of facts nor any grounds of appeal as required in the prescribed format. The observations of the CIT(A) are as under :-
The assessee being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal on 25.04.2014. The case was fixed for hearing on 22.07.2016 and the AR of the assessee appeared for hearing. During the proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the AR that this appeal does not have statement of facts or ground of appeal
. The assessee at the time of filing the appeal filed a page having heading statement of facts and ground of appeal but it is sort of statement of facts and there is not proper ground of appeal in the file. The grounds of appeal appended thereto which is required to be submitted to the CIT(A) along with Form No.35, as laid down in section 249 and Rules 45 and 46. The AR of the appellant appeared before the undersigned on 22.07.2016. During the hearing it was pointed out to the AR and as per order sheet entry dated 22.07.2016, this fact was also brought to the notice of the AR. There is no provision to the CIT(A) to call upon the appellate to rectify the mistake. In view of the above, the order of the AO is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant dismissed.”
Not being satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken the following grounds of appeal :-
1. For that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
2. For that the Ld. CI.T(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal does not have statement of facts or grounds of appeal
when such statement of facts and grounds of appeal were part of the Memo of Appeal filed before the Ld. CI.T(A).
3. For that even otherwise the Ld. CI.T(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without allowing the assessee any proper opportunity to file revised statement and grounds.
4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) should have allowed the assessee's appeal on non allowance of depreciation on car, vehicle maintenance expenses and subscription and donation which were otherwise covered by various decision in favour of the assessee.
5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming
6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the CIT(A) be modified and the assessee be given the relief prayed for.
The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In fact, the grounds of appeals were filed by the assessee which are appearing on the face of the order of the ld CIT(A) and this way, the ld CIT(A) contradicted himself.
Therefore, ld. AR requested before us to remit the case back to the file of CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issue afresh.
Even the, ld. DR for the Revenue has agreed to remit the case back to the file of the ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue after giving proper opportunity of being heard.
Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of assessee, as the proposition canvassed by ld. AR for the assessee are supported by the facts narrated by him above. We found that ld. CIT(A) had contradicted with himself, the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are mentioned by him in his order and he did not adjudicate them. Without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice. If the grounds of appeals filed by the assessee were not in the prescribed form, the Ld.CIT(A) should have asked the assessee to file it again before him. Justice should not be denied because of a minor mistake in grounds of appeal/filing of appeal. Therefore, considering the factual position, we are of the view to remit the case back
4 M/s Rahul Premier India Agency Pvt. Ltd. to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.