COMMITMENT FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA V. ACIT, CIR. 2(1), KOLKATA

MA 1/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Commitment Finance Ltd., the applicant, seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order that inadvertently restored only one of the several grounds raised in their appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Tribunal initially restored only the issue related to penny stocks, as mentioned in ground no.4 of the appeal, while the other grounds were not addressed. The assessee's representative argued that this oversight constituted a patent error that needed rectification. The Departmental Representative acknowledged the error. Consequently, the Tribunal modified its earlier decision to restore all the issues back to the AO for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25064 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILEN SAMADDER
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Penny stocks

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM MA No. 1/KOL/2025 (Arising in ITA No. 102/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18) Commitment Finance Ltd. Business Communication Centre, 21 Parsee Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1) Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Applicant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCC3905A Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Sailen Samadder, DR Date of hearing: 07.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: By way of this Miscellaneous Application the assessee seeks the rectification of the order dated 22.05.2024, passed in ITA No. 102/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. 02. The ld. AR submitted before the bench that the assessee has raised 7 grounds in the said appeal out of which ground no.1 and 7 were general in nature. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that while restoring the appeal to the file of the ld. AO the Tribunal has only restored the issue pertaining to the penny stock, which is raised by the assessee in ground no.4 and remaining grounds were Page | 2 MA No. 1/KOL/2025 Commitment Finance Ltd; A.Y. 2017-18 inadvertently not restored at all which a patent error required to be rectified. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the said order may kindly be rectified by restore all the issues / grounds to the file of the ld. AO. 03. The ld. DR on the other hand fairly agreed only one ground was restored which was ground no.4 and the remaining grounds were not adjudicated at all. 04. After hearing both the parties and perusing the records before us, we find that this was an error committed inadvertently which is require rectification. Accordingly, we modify para 4 in the said order, for the sake of ready reference the para no.4 of the Tribunal order is extracted as under: “4. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that undoubtedly the assessee was noncompliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision passed ex parte. However, in our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to set out the point of determination and his decision thereon and the reason for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Besides, we also note that the AO has recorded a finding in para 2.4 that the transaction done in Jay Ushin Ltd. share which was a penny stock which is also apparently a wrong finding by the AO as it did not figure in the list of penny stocks as published by CAG. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issue back to the file of the AO so that the facts could be appreciated in correct perspective and order is passed accordingly de novo. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well.” The said para is modified and substituted with the following para as under:- ““4. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that undoubtedly the assessee was noncompliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision passed ex parte. However, in our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to set out the point of determination and his decision thereon and the reason for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to restore all the issues back to the file of the AO so that the facts could be appreciated in correct perspective and order is passed accordingly de novo. Page | 3 MA No. 1/KOL/2025 Commitment Finance Ltd; A.Y. 2017-18 Accordingly, we restore the issues to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well.” 05. In the result, the MA of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.03.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.03.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "