Sales Emporium (ULG), Kolkata V. ITO, WD-43(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1029/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4231 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1029/KOL/16 M/S. SALES EMPORIUM (ULG) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,D BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE : SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1029/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2009-10 M/S. SALES EMPORIUM(ULG) VS. I.T.O., WARD 41(2), PAN: AAKFS 8098N NOW 43(2),KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY: SHRI V.N.DUTTA, AR SHRI H.R. SINGH, JCIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 30-11-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2016 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-01-2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS),13, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL AS TO WHETHER THE CIT-A IS JUSTIFIED IN PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE ADJOURNMENT PETITIONS FILED BEFORE HIM AND IN THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM AND DEALING IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ELECTRONIC GOODS. THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN THROUGH ON LINE ON 29-9-2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.7,72,900/-. UNDER SCRUTINY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND THEREAFTER, U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ITA NO. 1029/KOL/16 M/S. SALES EMPORIUM (ULG) 2 WERE ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED VOUCHERS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER PARTICULARS BE FORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.29,84,507/- BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND TO T HAT EFFECT AN ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 28-11-2011. 4. THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT-A. THE CI T-A DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NEITHER T HE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AR COMPLIED WITH THE SAID NOTICES AS STATED IN THE FIR ST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. BEFORE US THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THA T THE CIT-A WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS AS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT-A AND AS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US DATED 2 8-12-2015, 08-04- 2015, 13-02-2015 AND 17-01-2015 PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER AND ALSO ARGUED THAT THAT THESE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS WER E FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING THE CIT-A TO ADJOURN THE APPEAL UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FILED FOR THE AY 2008-09 AS IT STANDS HEARD BY CIT-A THEN AND RESERVED FOR PASSING THE ORDER TILL NOW. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL FILED FOR THE AY 2008-09 ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, THEREBY WITH A VI EW TO REBUT THE ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT MAY ARISE OUT OF THE SAID APPEAL FOR THE AY 2008-09 AND SUBMITTED THAT NO ORDER OF THE CIT-A WAS PASSED IN RESPECT OF SAID APPEAL TILL NOW. THUS, HE URGED TO REMAND THE ISSUE(S) TO THE CIT-A FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLAC ED COPIES OF ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS AS STATED ABOVE, WHEREIN I T IS NOTICED AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A SSESSEE REQUESTED THE CIT-A TO ADJOURN THE APPEAL UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2008- ITA NO. 1029/KOL/16 M/S. SALES EMPORIUM (ULG) 3 09 WHICH WAS HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PASSING THE OR DER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CIT-A PASSED AN EX PARTE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDER ING THE SAID ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS AS FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE ALSO PLACED BEFORE US. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATIONS THE SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMI TTED BY THE LD.AR BEFORE US , WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE(S) TO THE FILE OF CIT-A FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL B E AT LIBERTY TO FILE/PRODUCE EVIDENCES, IF ANY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND SHALL CO- OPERATE WITH THE CIT-A IN FURTHER APPELLATE PROCEED ING. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER,2016 SD/- SD/- M.BALAGANESH S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 30/11/ 2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE: M/S. SALES EMPORIUM (ULG) 85-D, ULTADANGA MAIN ROAD, KOLKATA-67. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ DEPARTMENT: INCO ME TAX OFFICER, WARD 43(2), 3 GOVT PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-1. 3 / THE CIT(A) 4.THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . **PP/SPS TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRA R ITA NO. 1029/KOL/16 M/S. SALES EMPORIUM (ULG) 4