SMT. SUNITA DEVI CHHAJER,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), SURI, BIRBHUM. , BIRBHUM.

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1202/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 January 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the case back to the AO. The assessee is granted an opportunity to present all relevant details and objections regarding the reopening of the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(38) for the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee's husband, who managed her financial affairs, passed away during the assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present her case before the AO due to the death of her husband.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SRI RAJPAL YADAV & SRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

order : January 22nd, 2024 ORDER Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ): The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 15.09.2023 passed for AY 2016-17. 2. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal

1.

; out of that ground no. 4 is a general ground which does not call for recording of any specific finding.

3. In ground no. 1, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

I.T.A. No.: 1202/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Sunita Devi Chhajer.

4.

In ground nos. 2 & 3, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') amounting to Rs. 33,27,375/- and also action of the AO, vide which he estimated a sum of Rs. 99,821/- which ought to have been incurred by the assessee for arranging this claim of Rs. 33,27,375/-.

5.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs. 3,91,050/-. The ld. AO has reopened the assessment by recording reasons which are available on page no. 1 & 2 of the impugned assessment order. He issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. In brief, case of the AO is that the assessee has sold 5,000 shares of M/s. Appu Marketing and Manufacturing Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 32,65,322/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. In an ex-parte assessment order he disallowed this claim.

6.

The appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.

7.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that financial affairs of the assessee are being managed by her husband Sh. Narendra Kumar Chhajer who at the age of 64 expired when the assessment order was in progress. The ld. AO has passed the assessment order on 07.03.2022 and he died on 05.04.2022. The assessee is not possessing all the material and she has been collecting the material from tax consultants etc. He prayed that one more opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee.

8.

On the other hand, ld. D/R relied on the order of the AO.

9.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the death certificate of Sh. Narendra Kumar Chhajer. It is almost near to the assessment date and it was quite difficult for the assessee to make submissions before the AO qua an assessment year 2016-17. The Department has started the enquiry at the fag end i.e. reopened on 31.03.2021 and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 10.01.2022. The assessee might not be in a possession of all the material which was required to be filed before the first appellate authority and therefore, considering this fact, we deem it proper

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →