SMT.RENUKA JANA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-27(2), HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 991/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 January 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, providing adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which affirmed additions made by the AO as undisclosed investment. The assessee claimed they did not get sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the additions made as undisclosed investment were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

order

: January 25th, 2024 ORDER

Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member:

1.

The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 31.07.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2017-18. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-27(2), Haldia (in brevity the ‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2019.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in affirming the action of the AO in affirming the addition I.T.A. No.: 991/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Renuka Jana. of Rs. 10,56,125/- (Rs. 7,76,125/- + Rs.2,80,000/-) as undisclosed investment u/s 69 and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may be held accordingly.

2. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in affirming the action of the AO in affirming the addition of Rs. 7,76,125/- (being deposit in Savings Account No. 2666660738) as undisclosed investment u/s 69 and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may be held accordingly.

3. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in affirming the action of the AO in affirming the addition of Rs.2,80,000/- (being deposit in Savings Account No. 6424940315) as undisclosed investment u/s 69 and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may be held accordingly.

4. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 above, the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in affirming the action of the AO in not appreciating the fact that the amount so deposited in the bank was out of the withdrawal so made from the Savings Account and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may be held accordingly. Even otherwise and without prejudice the AO has unjustifiably held that appellant is not engaged in “business” when AO himself had accepted the “business income” so declared by appellant and hence the addition of Rs. 10,56,125/- is bad in law and it may be held accordingly.

5. That the appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and / or to amend or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds on or before the hearing of appeal.”

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant appeal, the impugned order is ex-parte and the assessee failed to get sufficient opportunity to give the submissions and file relevant documents in support of its grounds raised

before ld. CIT(A). Prayer was made to restore all the issues in the instant appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

4. Ld. D/R was fair enough in not raising any objection if the issues raised in the instant appeal is restored to ld. CIT(A).

5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. From perusal of the impugned order, we find that there was no appearance I.T.A. No.: 991/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Renuka Jana. on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the impugned order was passed ex-parte.

6.

We, therefore, considering the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and no objection being raised by ld. D/R, restore all the issues in the instant appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions as well as the relevant documents to be filed by the assessee on being provided adequate opportunity and to decide in accordance with law. The observations herein made by us in remanding the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) will not impair or injure the case of the revenue nor will it cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered, in support of its grounds of appeal

and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 25th January, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →