HOTEL PARBAT PVT. LTD.,MALDA vs. DCIT, MALDA CIRCLE, MALDA, MALDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was not passed in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not provide reasons for the decision and was passed ex parte without proper consideration of submissions. The matter was remitted back for fresh disposal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a hotel company, filed its return of income at 'nil'. During assessment, it failed to produce books of account, leading the AO to make additions for sundry creditors and share application money under best judgment assessment. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) order was passed in accordance with statutory requirements and whether the assessee was given a proper opportunity of being heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri dated 12.09.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08.
As noted, at the outset, there is a delay of 21 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. D.R. has not also raised any objection in this regard. I, therefore, condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit. ./2015 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 4
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of running hotel. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 15.11.2007 declaring total income at ‘nil’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the books of account and other supporting documents despite sufficient opportunity afforded by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, had no option but to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144. In the assessment so completed vide an order dated 26.11.2009, sundry creditors amounting to Rs.19,05,839/- and share application money amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- were added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee by treating the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) /144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals), written submissions were filed by the assessee, which were forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for the later’s comments. As mentioned by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order, reminders were also issued by him to the Assessing Officer for submitting the remand report expeditiously. The assessee also did not appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the dates fixed for hearing. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal of the assessee ex parte and dismissed the same by passing the order as under:- “(1) This appeal is filed against the order u/s 143(3)/144 dated 26.11.2009 assessing the income at Rs.22,33,940/- against the returned income of NIL.
(2) Statement of facts- In the initial hearings the assessee filed written submissions which were forwarded to AO for comments. Thereafter, reminders were issued to the AO for expediting the submission of remand report. Several other dates were fixed for hearing the appeal which were not attended by the assessee. The assessee did not avail the opportunities given to argue the appeal or point out defects in the assessment order.
./2015 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 4
(3) Conclusion- In view of these facts, it is presumed that the assessee has no arguments in support of the grounds of appeal taken. It is further seen that the appeal is filed beyond the time limit prescribed and no reasons for late filing are mentioned in the appeal. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assesssee has submitted that even though written submissions were filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals), the same have not been considered by him while disposing of the appeal of the assessee by his impugned order passed ex parte. He has submitted that the said written submissions were duly forwarded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer for the later’s comments but it is not clear from the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) as to whether the remand report was actually filed by the Assessing Officer. As per the provisions of sub-section 6 of section 250, it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose of the appeal of the assessee by an order passed in writing stating therein the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) clearly shows that the same is not passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) and even the ld. D.R. has not been able to dispute or controvert this position. I, therefore, set aside the said order and remit the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on July 14, 2016.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026