M/S PRATIGYAN FINTRADE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed without a proper opportunity and that the CIT(A)'s findings were non-speaking. The Revenue conceded that the issues could be remitted back to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an order confirming additions of commission and cash deposits. The assessment was framed under Section 144 without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment was validly framed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and whether the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-5, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 237/CIT(A)-5/Wd-1(4)/11-12/14-15 dated 06.11.2015. Assessment was framed by ITO, Wd- 3(4), Kolkata u/s. 254/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2002-03 vide his order dated 16.12.2010. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that there are two issues in this appeal of assessee against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of commission of Rs.24,000/- and addition of Rs.1.5 lacs being cash deposit made to bank. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessment framed is u/s. 144 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. She also drew my attention to the findings of CIT(A) which are non-speaking and cryptic. When a query was put to Ld. Sr. DR, he fairly conceded that the two issues can be remitted back to the file of AO. In this position, I restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court. (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member Dated : 23rd February, 2016 Jd. Sr. P.S Copy of the order forwarded to:
Appellant – M/s. Pratigyan Fintrade (P) Ltd., P-27, Princep Street, 3rd floor, Kol-72
Respondent – ITO, Ward-3(4), Kolkata.
CIT(A) , Kolkata
CIT , Kolkata
DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /, By order, Asstt.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026