M/s Savitri Ispat(India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1564/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4229 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH S ARS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1564/KOL/16 M/S. SAVITRI ISPAT (I) PVT.LTD 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.1564/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2006-07 M/S. SAVITRI ISPAT VS. I.T.O., WARD 3(2), KOLKAT A (INDIA) PVT. LTD LTD PAN: AAICS3905R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, & SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH, AD VOCATES, ARS FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL.CIT, DR FOR THE REVEN UE DATE OF HEARING : 25-11-2016 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 11-05-2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS), 1, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07, WHEREIN HE PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THE CIT-A IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 1564/KOL/16 M/S. SAVITRI ISPAT (I) PVT.LTD 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DEALING IN INSTALLING PLANT FOR PRODUCTION OF M.S INGOT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME ON 30-11-2006. THEREAFTER, NOTICES U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. ACCORDING TO AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE FULL COM PLIANCE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 142 (1) OF THE ACT. THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.15,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND TO THAT EFFECT AN ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 31-12-2008. 4. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT-A DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N AS MADE BY THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE CIT-A THAT BEFORE HIM NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON SIX OCCASIONS AND IT IS ALSO NOTICED T HAT THE NOTICE FIXING THE HEARING ON 9.2.16 WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. WE FIND TH AT ON 08-03-2016 THE A.R APPEARED AND SOUGHT TIME. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE ADJOURNED TO 26.04.2016 AND THEREAFTER, ON 04.05.2016 NONE APPEA RED BEFORE HIM. WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL THE CIT-A HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M ESUFALI H. M ABDULALI REPORTED IN (1973) 90 ITR 271 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE APPE LLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGEMENT IN PLACE OF THE JUDGEM ENT OF THE AO UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE AO WAS BIASED , IRRATIONAL, VINDICTIVE OR CAPRICIOUS. BEFORE US THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT TH E ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUPRA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS E NGAGED MR. T.K KEJRIWAL, A/R TO PROSECUTE ITS APPEAL AND ACCORDING LY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COUNSEL MUST BE LOOKI NG AFTER THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT-A. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT-A THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE COUNSEL DID NOT PUR SUE THE MATTER ITA NO. 1564/KOL/16 M/S. SAVITRI ISPAT (I) PVT.LTD 3 BEFORE THE CIT-A. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY CHANGED THE COUNSEL AND FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TH E LD.AR FURTHER HUMBLY REQUESTED TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE CIT-A FOR FRE SH ADJUDICATION AND ASSURED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CIT-A. AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED TO THAT EFFECT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION ABOVE. HAVING PERUSED THE SAME, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR AS SUBMITTED BEFORE US AN D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE CA SE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT-A FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND TO PASS ORDER AS P ER LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCES, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE IN FURTHER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT SEEKING ANY FURTHER ADJOURNMENT . 6. 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. SAVITRI ISPAT (INDIA ) PVT. LTD 23A, KALAKAR STREET, KOLKATA-700 007. 2 THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN,P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KO LKATA-69. 3 / THE CIT(A) 4.THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . **PP/SPSTRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTR AR ITA NO. 1564/KOL/16 M/S. SAVITRI ISPAT (I) PVT.LTD 4