SRIMANTA KUMAR DEY,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1688/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 December 2015AY 2009-20102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the issues concerning the undisclosed bank balance and cash payments to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to re-adjudicate these issues after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an ex parte order by the CIT(A) concerning additions made by the AO under Section 69 for undisclosed bank balance and Section 40A(3) for cash payments. The assessee claimed they did not receive the CIT(A)'s notice and thus could not represent themselves.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when the assessee did not receive notice, and whether the additions under Section 69 and Section 40A(3) require fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 40A(3),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]

Hearing: 08.12.2015Pronounced: 11.12.2015

For the Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Tanuj Niyogi, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 535/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/Ward-1(1)MID/2011-12 dated 26.03.2014. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-1(1), Midnapore u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2009-10 vide his order dated 12.12.2011.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, first of all, argued that the AO has made addition u/s. 69 of the Act being undisclosed closing balance of bank account of Rs.2,23,787/- and disallowance made on account of cash payments by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the act for a sum of Rs.6,86,000/-. For this, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order against these two additions made by AO. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee could not receive the CIT(A)’s notice and accordingly could not represent before him. He also stated that this addition pertains to factual aspect of the issue which was not explained before the AO and practically before AO also there was no opportunity to the assessee to explain the issue. Accordingly, he requested the bench to set aside the issue to the file of the AO instead of CIT(A). On this, the bench required the Ld. Sr. DR to say something. Ld. Sr. DR fairly agreed that the issue can be remitted to the file of the AO so that proper assessment can be framed on these two issues. Accordingly, I am convinced and set aside these issues to the file of AO with a direction that the AO will

2 Srimanta Kumar Dey AY 2009-10 re-adjudicate these two issues afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2015. Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) Judicial Member

Dated : 11th December, 2015 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

APPELLANT – Shri Srimanta Kumar Dey, Anjuman Mahal, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, Mir Bazar Midnapore, WB-721 101 2 Respondent –ITO, Ward-1(1), Midnapore. 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 69

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →