ITO, WD-8(4), KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s Sonex T.V.Appliances, Kolkata

ITA 1802/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0445 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MONDAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1802 / KOL / 20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SEIKH NIZAMUDDIN RAMBAG, MAHISHADAL, DIST. PURBA MEDINIPUR-721602 [ PAN NO. ABKPN 1798 H ] V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-27, HALDIA-721602 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI P.K. MONDAL, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 28-08-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19-09-2018 / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 28.04.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO.611/CIT(A)-7/CIR.27/15-16, IN PRO CEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND PLEADS TH AT THE CIT(A)S HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN AFFIRMING THE A SSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING ADDITION OF 1,11,64,695/- AS INVESTMENTS IN LAND FROM UNDISCLOS ED SOURCES. IT EMERGES AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A) H AS PASSED HIS LOWER APPELLATE ORDER EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE HAS REMAINED THE SAME THROUGHOUT. PA RA-1.1 IN THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER INDICATES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ISSUE D FIVE NOTICE(S) ON 20,08,2015, 14,09.2015, 09.10.2015, 26.02.2016 & 13 ,04,2016 FOR HEARINGS ON 15.09.2015, 08.10.2015, 05.11.2015, 18.03.2016 A ND 28.04.2016; ITA NO.1802/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 SK. NIZAMUDDIN VS. ACIT, CIR-27 HA LDIA PAGE 2 RESPECTIVELY. WE DO NOT FIND EVEN A SINGLE REMARK I N THE CIT(A)S ORDER AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ACTUALLY SERVED THE SAID NOTICE(S) OR NOT. COUPLED WITH THIS, THERE IS NO DETAILED DISCUSSION ON MERIT S ABOUT THE SOLE ISSUE HEREINABOVE AS WELL AS SINCE THE CIT(A)S ORDER BRU SHING ASIDE ALL THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURES BY A ON NON SPEAKING ADJUDICATION IN P ARA 5.9. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ALSO FORWARDED ASSESSEE S FRESH EVIDENCE FOR A REMAND REPORT AS WELL WHICH WAS NEVER SUBMITTED IN LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE FAILS TO REBUT ALL THIS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE INSTANT APPEAL BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR AFRESH ADJUDI CATION ON MERITS AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE TAXPAYER. 3. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 19 /09/2018 SD/- SD/- ( %) (' %) (M.BALAGANESH) (S.S.GODARA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 19 / 09 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-SK. NIZAMUDDIN, RAMBAG, MAHISHADAL, DIST . PURBA MEDINIPUR 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIRCLE-27, HALDIA 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 ''3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,