Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)
ORDER Per Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee having aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2010 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata in Appeal No.A-1015/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Wd.1(3)/Mid./09-10 for the assessment year 2007-08 framed under section 143(3) of I.T.Act.
Challenging the above impugned order, the assessee raised the following grounds before the Tribunal. “1. For that the I.T.O. was wrong in adding Rs.94,000/- in the sundry Creditor and added with the total income was unjustified. 2. for that the I.T.O. erred in adding Rs.81,000/- in lorry income and the same is illegal.
3. For that the I.T.O. was wrong in disallowing the depreciation of Rs.76,206/- and the same is unjustified.
4. For that the I.T.O. was not justified in taking Rs.42,250/- for violation U/s.40(a)(ia) and added with the total income is arbitrary.
Amit Kumar Pal Assessment Year: 2007-08
For that the I.T.O. was not justified in adding Rs.11,45,849/- in the building investment and the same is illegal.
for that the further ground or grounds, if any, may be placed at that time of hearing with the leave of the Hon’ble Bench Member.”
At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee did not press ground nos.1,2,3 and 4, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. Ground no.6, being general in nature, does not require adjudication and hence dismissed. The only ground remains for adjudication is ground no.5, which is relating to the addition of Rs.11,45,849/- by the Assessing Officer on account of illegal investment in building.
At the outset it was observed the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order after rejecting the adjournment petition filed by the A/R. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the additions made by the AO without mentioning any detailed reason for the same. The ld. AR before us prayed for one more opportunity and requested to restore the issue to ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR raised no objection to restore the same. We find that under section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We also find from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that he has confirmed the order of the AO without going into the merits of the grounds. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) should have given another opportunity to the assessee to appear before him to explain the undisclosed investment. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to him with a direction to decide the Amit Kumar Pal Assessment Year: 2007-08 same on merit, after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. It is pertinent to mentioned that the assessee shall co-operate at the appellate stage.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13th July, 2016.