Shivam Hire Purchase Amp Finvest Pvt Ltd Kolkata v. Ito Ward 5 1 Kolkata Kolkata

Sa No 126 Kol 2017 Ita No 2140 Kol 2017 Shivam Hir E Purchase Finvest P Ltd A Y 2014 15 1 In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench C Kol Kata Before Honble Shri N V Vasudevan Jm Shri M B Alaganesh Am S A No 126 Kol 2017 A O Ita No 2140 Kol 2017 Assessment Year 2014 15 Shivam Hire Purchase Finvest Versus I T O Ward 5 1 P Ltd Kolkata Kolkata Pan Aagcs 0627 N Appellant Respondent Ita No 2140 Kol 2017 Assessment Year 2014 15 Shivam Hire Purchase Finvest Versus I T O Ward 5 1 P Ltd Kolkata Kolkata Pan Aagcs 0627 N Appellant Respondent For The Appellant Shri Anil Kochar Advocate For The Respondent Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 01 12 2017 Order Per N V Vasudevan Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Praying For An Order Of Stay Of Recovery Of Outstanding Demand Of Rs 1 35 35 590 When Th E Stay Application Came Up For Hearing It Was Noticed By The Bench That The Order Of Cit A Is An Exparte Order And The Assessees Main Grievance In The Appeal Is That Cit A Did Not Afford Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee Before P Assing The Impugned Order We Therefore Proposed That The Appeal Itself Can Be De Cided Instead Of Deciding The Stay Application With The Consent Of The Parties The Ap Peal Was Taken Up For Hearing 2 The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Busines S Of Making Investments For A Y 2014 15 An Order Of Assessment U S 143 3 Of Th E Income Tax Act 1961 Act Was Passed On 13 12 2016 As Against The Returned Income Of Nil Filed By The Sa No 126 Kol 2017 Ita No 2140 Kol 2017 Shivam Hir E Purchase Finvest P Ltd A Y 2014 15 2 Assessee The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Deter Mined At A Sum Of Rs 3 00 13 400 The Ao Made Two Additions In The Order Of Assessmen T Namely I Addition Of Rs 3 Crores On Account Of Unexplained Investment In Unli Sted Equity Shares U S 69 Of The Act And Ii Addition Of Rs 13 400 U S 14 A Of Th E Act 3 Aggrieved By The Order Of Ao The Assessee Prefer Red Appeal Before Cit A The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee Before Cit A On 02 03 2017 The Appeal Had Not Been Listed For Hearing Before Cit A The Asse Ssee Had Filed A Letter Dt 27 06 2017 In The Office Of Cit A Which Was Recei Ved On 04 07 2017 In The Said Letter The Assessee Had Requested Cit A To Permit The Assessee To Withdraw The Appeal For The Following Reasons We Have Instituted Captioned Appeal Against The Or Der Of The Assessing Officer For A Y 2014 15 We Are Alternatively Seeking Remed Ial Action Under Section 154 Before The Ao In The Matter Accordingly We Seek T O Withdraw Appeal Instituted By Us Against The Said Order And Request Your Honou R To Allow Us To Withdraw The Captioned Appeal 4 The Cit A After Receipt Of This Letter Without Giving Any Notice To The Assessee Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Upholding The Order Of Ao According To The Cit A There Was No Provision Under The Act For Wit Hdrawing The Appeal Filed Before Cit A Cit A Further Noticed That The Assessee Di D Not File Any Written Arguments Against The Finding Of The Ao In The Absence Of An Y Material Cit A Concluded That There Is No Infirmity In The Order Of Ao And Dismis Sed The Appeal Of The Assessee 5 Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit A The Assessee Pr Eferred The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal Raising The Following Grounds O F Appeal 1 For That The Ld Cit A Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Alleged Grounds 2 For That There Was No Reasonable Opportunity Of H Earing Given By The Ld Cit A To The Appellant With Reference To The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Appellant For Adjudication 3 For That Even Though The Ld Cit Ca Did Not All Ow Withdrawal Of The Appeal As Requested By The Appellant The Appellant Ought To Have Been Informed About Sa No 126 Kol 2017 Ita No 2140 Kol 2017 Shivam Hir E Purchase Finvest P Ltd A Y 2014 15 3 The Same And An Opportunity Ought To Have Been Give N To The Appellant To Piece Arguments And Contentions On The Issues Involved In Appeal 4 For That The Order Of The Ld Cit Ca Ought To H Ave Considered The Grounds Agitated By The Appellant And Ought To Have Decided The Same 5 For That Further Grounds Of Appeal May Kindly Be Allowed To Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal 6 We Have Heard The Rival Submissions As Rightly Contended In The Grounds Of Appeal There Was No Opportunity Of Being Heard Affo Rded To The Assessee By Cit A Before Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Cit A Ought To Have Informed The Assessee That There Is No Provision In The Act And Therefore The Assessees Request For Withdrawal Of Appeal Cannot Be Acceded To Cit A O Ught To Have Fixed The Appeal For Hearing And Called Upon The Assessee To Put Forth H Is Case Against The Order Of Ao Because Cit A Was Of The View That The Appeal Once Filed Cannot Be Withdrawn In Our View Therefore Order Of Cit A Deserves To Be S Et Aside And Here By Set Aside Cit A Is Directed To Give Opportunity Of Being Hea Rd To The Assessee On The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Before Cit A The Assessee Shall Put Forth Its Grievances Before Cit A Who Shall Decide The Same In Accorda Nce With Law After Affording Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee For Sta Tistical Purpose The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Treated As Allowed 7 In View Of The Decision On Merits Of The Appeal We Are Of The View That The Stay Application Is Infructuous And The Same Is Dismisse D As Infructuous 8 In The Result The Appeal By The Assesee Is Allow Ed For Statistical Purposes And The Stay Application By The Assessee Is Dismissed O Rder Pronounced In The Court On 01 12 2017 Sd Sd M Balaganesh N V Vasudevan Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 01 12 2017 Rg Sr Ps Sa No 126 Kol 2017 Ita No 2140 Kol 2017 Shivam Hir E Purchase Finvest P Ltd A Y 2014 15 4 Copy Of The Order Forwarded To 1 Shivam Hire Purchse Finvest P Ltd C O S L Ko Char Advocate 5 Ashutosh Chowdhury Lane Kolkata 700019 2 I T O Ward 5 1 Kolkta 3 C I T A 2 Kolkata 4 C I T 2 Kolka Ta 5 Cit Dr Kolkata Benches Kolkata True Copy By Order Senior Pr Ivate Secretary Head Of Office D D O Itat Kolkata Bench Es