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 assessment year 2012-2013, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, in Appeal No.1304/CIT(A)-2/2014-15, dated 06.07.2016, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2014.
Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed original return of Income Tax on 27.08.2012 showing an income of Rs.NIL. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny U/s143(3) of the Act and the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment by making disallowance u/s.14A of the Act at Rs.20,75,947/-.
Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who has confirmed the order passed by ld. AO observing the followings :-
“During the appellate proceedings following notices were issued for hearing in the matter. The details of these notices along with remarks are as under :-
Date of Notice Date of Remarks Hearing 12.04.2016 06.05.2016 As per record non-appeared nor any adjournment was filed/available on record 12.05.2016 14.06.2016 As per record non-appeared nor any adjournment was filed/available on record 15.06.2016 30.06.2016 As per record non-appeared nor any adjournment was filed/available on record
In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant is not interest in pursuing any of all grounds of appeal.
I have considered the ground of appeal and statement of facts filed by the assessee and also the order as passed by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has already discussed the issue in details with all the facts and relevant evidences available on record while passing the order. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has not submitted any written or oral arguments with evidence against the findings of the AO.
Hence, in the absence of any cogent material evidence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO and the same is hereby upheld. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is 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) That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in passing ex-parte order and confirming all the disallowances made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer without considering the merit of the case.
2) THAT without prejudice the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming all disallowances made by the A.O. on the alleged ground that in the absence of any cogent material evidence and further erred in confirming the order of the A.O. without giving his finding or justification to the Grounds of Appeals
3 Mojjika Steels Pvt. Ltd. 3) THAT in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowances of expenditure made by the Ld. A.O. U/s.14A of the IT. Act, read with Rule-8D amounting to Rs. 20,75,947/- without giving proper justification. 4) THAT the Ld. Authorities below have erred in ignoring the facts that interest expenditure incurred by the appellant was directly related to other business activities and no disallowances was called for. 5) THAT in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. ClT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowances of Salary & Benefits amounting to Rs. 9,600/-. 6) THAT in the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. ClT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,000/- on account of accounting charges paid. 7) THAT the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred the decision of A.O. for not setting off of unabsorbed business loss and setting off against the current years profit.
Ld. AR, at the outset, argued that the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) should be restored back as the assessee did not receive any notice from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Ld. DR for the Revenue also agreed with the contention raised by the ld. AR for the assessee.
Having heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee, as the proposition canvassed by ld. AR for the assessee are supported by the facts narrated by him above. As ld. AR pointed out that assessee never received any notice from the ld.CIT(A). Keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we are of the view to remit the case back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh. Accordingly, we remit
4 Mojjika Steels Pvt. Ltd. the case back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues afresh after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 04/01/2017.