RANBHUMI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., NFAC, DELHI / I.T.O., WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 727/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 April 2024AY 2013-2014Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) due to short notice periods and the assessee's inability to respond in time. The assessee argued that the absence was not intentional and sought an opportunity to present its case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard and present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : April 29, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 15.10.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, hence these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The assessee’s appeal is taken as the lead case for the purpose of narration of facts.

2.

ITA No.727/Kol/2022 – The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: &728/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ranbhumi Nirman Pvt Ltd “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) erred in not setting-aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO].

1.

2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact there was lack of due application of mind in reopening the case.

3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act is invalid since the Ld. AO failed to obtain the sanction to the reasons recorded though required by the appellant to produce the same but the Ld. A.O. failed to supply.

4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO failed to rebut the objection filed.

5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the addition and disallowances made are illegal and liable to be deleted.

6. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the interest computed u/s 234 A/B/C/D of the IT Act 1961 is overcharged and wrongly calculated and or is not applicable to the assessee case hence the interest be deleted and or correctly computed.

7. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in ignoring the fact that the assessment order having been passed without the appellant being given proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard and hence, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, illegal and liable to be quashed.

8. That the appellant craves to leave, adduce additional grounds and/or to amend or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds before, or at the time of hearing of appeal. PRAYER: It is prayed that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi be set aside and full relief may be granted to the appellant.”

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →