S.A.M.Industries, Howrah V. I.T.O.,Ward-48(4), Kolkata

ITA 981/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0214 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 246A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM ./I.T.A NO.981/KOL/2019 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17) S.A.M. INDUSTRIES DAG NO. 2145, LAKSHMANPUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HOWRAH 711 114. VS. ITO, WARD 48(4), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: ACKFS 0328 K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 23/12/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/12/2019 / O R D E R THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-14, KOLKATA DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO. CIT(A), KOLKATA-14/10314/2018-19 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT IT AN RPAD NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING. IT IS ACCORDINGLY PRODUCED EX- PARTE. 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION DISALLOWANIG PARTNERSHIP REMUNERATION OF RS. 2,25,000/- U/S 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER: 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION IN ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I.T.A NO.981/KOL/2019 S.A.M. INDUSTRIES PAGE | 2 1. FOR THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING PART OF THE PARTNERSHIP REMUNERATION ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISION OF UNDER A1$)(V) OF THE IT ACT, FURTHER NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 143(7). 3. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED APPEAL ON 07.09.2018 AGAINST INTIMATION U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT DATED 29.08.2017 AT THE DELAY OF MORE THAN 1 YEAR. THE REASONS FOR DELAY WAS BECAUSE THE APPELLANT ORIGINALLY APPEALED AGAINST ORDER U/S. 143(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 DATED 06.12.2016 PASSED BY CPC, BENGLURU. THE CIT (A) HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AS THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED REVISED INTIMATION ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 AND, THEREFORE, APPEAL AGAINST INTIMATION DATED 06.12.2016 HAS BECOME NON-EST IN LAW. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, FOR CONDONATION. THE CIT (APPEALS) ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL WAS PASSED ON 28.08.2018. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED APPEAL U/S. 246A ON 07.09.2018 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 30 DAYS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FOR CONDONATION IS ACCEPTED. 4. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE PART OF THE PARTNERSHIP REMUNERATION ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISION OF UNDER 40(B)(V) OF THE IT ACT, FURTHER NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 143(1). 5. DECISION: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THIS IS AN APPEAL AGAINST RETURN PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT BY CPC, BENGALURU. THE CPC, BENGALURU WERE PROCESSING THE RETURN U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT HAS COMPUTED INCOME AT RS. 4,01,768/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.L,76,7681- AN ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/-. NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR THE ENHANCEMENT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN INTIMATED AND GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT HIS EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE ENHANCEMENT. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE CPC, BENGALURU DILIGENTLY SENDS SYSTEM GENERATE INTIMATION BEFORE MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENTS. THE INTIMATION IS SENT EITHER IN WRITING OR ELECTRONIC MODE. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS OF COMMUNICATION MADE BY HIM WITH CPC, BENGALURU AS REGARDS THE SAID ENHANCEMENT. THEREFORE, APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. THIS GROUND OF APPEALS FALLS AND THUS, IS NOT ALLOWED. 3. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE REVENUES ARGUMENTS STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. IT IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR FROM CIT(A)S ABOVE EXTRACTED DETAILED DISCUSSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD AT ALL BEFORE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF PARTNERS REMUNERATION HAS BEEN MADE. I.T.A NO.981/KOL/2019 S.A.M. INDUSTRIES PAGE | 3 HE HOLDS THAT THE CPC IS A VERY DILIGENT SYSTEM. THE CASE RECORDS DO NOT INDICATE ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN CPC OR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING. 4. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.12.2019. SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER /KOLKATA; / DATE: 31/12/2019 (BISWAJIT, SR.PS) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA . 1. THE APPELLANT - S.A.M. INDUSTRIES. 2. THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD 48(4), KOLKATA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA [SENT THROUGH EMAIL] 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA [SENT THROUGH EMAIL] 6. [ / GUARD FILE.