SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T (APPEALS) XVI,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 692/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 November 2015AY 2008-20093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were cryptic and non-speaking, failing to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted the appeals back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned additions made by the Assessing Officer treating cash and cheques deposited into a bank as income from undisclosed sources, and a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders without proper adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds of appeal, and whether the orders passed were speaking and reasoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]

Hearing: 23.11.2015Pronounced: 23.11.2015

ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:

All these three appeals by assessee are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A)- XVI, Kolkata in Appeal Nos.30/CIT(A)-XVI/Wd-29(4)/Kol/10-11, 18 & 67/CIT(A)- XVI/Wd-29(4)/Kol/11-12 and all dated 31.01.2013. Assessments were framed by ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AYs 2008-09 vide its order dated 10.12.2010 and u/s. 144 of the Act for AY 2009-10 vide its order dated 25.11.2011.

2.

None is present for revenue. Revenue has filed a petition for adjournment asking for adjournment in twenty matters out of twenty three totally fixed in the cause list. The reason given by revenue in its petition dated 23.11.2015 reads as under: “I am directed to request to the Hon’ble “C” Bench, ITAT, Kolkata that Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. (DR) will not be able to represent the above mentioned cases since he is going on a visit to Burdwan for official work on 23rd November, 2015. Accordingly, I am directed to request that the case may kindly be adjourned for a later date as per the convenience of the Hon’ble Bench.” We find that the revenue is seeking adjournment on frivolous ground and this is a regular feature. Hence, without giving adjournment and since appeal is pending since 2013, we proceeded to decide it after hearing Ld. AR.

3.

First we take up and 693/Kol/2013. Common issue is involved in these two appeals of assessee, except variance in amount, i.e. against the order of CIT(A)

2 to 693/K/2013 Shri Santosh Kr. Gupta, AY 2008-09 upholding the addition made by AO treating cheques and cash deposited into Axis Bank as income from undisclosed sources. For this, assessee has raised following ground no. 2: “2. That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.48,72,460/- (for ITA 691 of 2013) and Rs.48,01,902/- (for ITA 693 of 2013) made by the learned Assessing Officer treating cheques and cash deposited into Axis Bank as income from undisclosed sources.”

4. We have heard Ld. AR of the assessee and have gone through the order of CIT(A) and seen that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and did not adjudicate ground in his appellate order. We also find that the orders of CIT(A) are cryptic one and non-speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in the orders by CIT(A). The duty of the CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order after controverting all the facts given by assessee and decide the issue with reasons. Hence, we quash the order of CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to his file for fresh adjudication with the above direction. We order accordingly. The appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5. Now, we are coming to ITA No. 692/Kol/2013. In this appeal of assessee the issue is against the order of CIT(A) in upholding the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this, assessee has raised following ground no.1: “1. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.16,38,963/- being @ 100% of Tax made by the ld. AO.”

6.

We have heard Ld. AR of the assessee and have gone through the order of CIT(A) and seen that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and did not adjudicate ground in his appellate order. Since we have already set aside the quantum appeal, let this penalty appeal also be set aside to the file of CIT(A) to decide afresh after deciding the quantum appeal. Needless to say, assessee should be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard. We order accordingly. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →