I . T. A . N o . : 3 0 0 / K o l . / 2 0 1 2
A s s e s s m e nt y e a r : 2 0 0 4- 0 5
Page 1 of 4
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
KOLKATA `B' BENCH, KOLKATA
Before Shri Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member),
and Shri George Mathan (Judicial Member)
I.T.A. No .: 30 0/ Kol. / 2012
Assessme nt year : 20 04-05
Minushree Merchang es Pvt. Ltd.,
17/1C, Alipo re Road,
Kolka ta-700 027 ............................................App ellant
[PAN : AADC M 9888 Q ]
-Vs.-
In come Tax Officer
Ward-12(4), Kolk ata ....................................R espo ndent
Appearances by:
Shri Sunil Chokhani, for the appellant
Shri AshokKumar Dey, for the respondent
Date of co ncluding t he hea ri ng : June 1 3, 20 12
Date of prono unci ng the o rde r : June 13, 2012
O R D E R
Per Pramod Kumar:
When this appeal was called out for hearing, our attention was
invited to the adjou rnment petition dated 08.06.2012 seeking
adjou rnment the hearing for non-availability of ld. counsel. However,
having perused the petition which is available on record, we are not
inclined to adjou rn the hearing mentioned in the petition. We,
therefore, proceed to dispose of the matter on the basis of material
available on record.
2. By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged
correctness of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)'s order
I . T. A . N o . : 3 0 0 / K o l . / 2 0 1 2
A s s e s s m e nt y e a r : 2 0 0 4- 0 5
Page 2 of 4
dated 24 t h December, 2008, in the matter of assessment under section
144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2004-05 on the
following grounds :-
(1)That on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned
CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.50,000/- out
of carriage inward expenses incurred by the asses see-
company.
(2) That on facts and circumstances of the case, learned
CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.24,000/- on
account of staff salary.
(3) That on the facts and circumstance s of the case, the
learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of
Rs.28,36,276/- on account of sundry cr editors.
(4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the non-
compliance of the notice fixing the hearing by the Income
Tax Practitioner could not become under the knowledge of
the assessee-company.
3. Briefly stated the material facts are like this. The assessee is
engaged in the bu siness of trading in iron and steel. The return of
income filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment but
due to non-appearance by the assessee, the assessment was framed
under section 144 of the Act. In the course of assessment so framed, the
Assessing Officer disallowed carriage inward expenses and staff
salaries on ad hoc basis on the ground that expenses have increased but
there is no corresponding increase in the turnover. The Assessing
Officer also added back Rs.28,36,276/- in respect of sundry creditors
shown in the balance-sheet and treated the same as bogus sundry
creditors. In this background, return of income was filed by the
assessee declaring a total income of Rs.15,687/-, which resulted in
I . T. A . N o . : 3 0 0 / K o l . / 2 0 1 2
A s s e s s m e nt y e a r : 2 0 0 4- 0 5
Page 3 of 4
assessed income of Rs.29,25,960/-.Aggrieved, the assessee carried the
matter in appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals). But once again there was
apparently no appearance before the learned CIT(Appeals). The ld.
CIT(Appeals) disposed of the matter ex-parte quo the assessee and
confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is not
satisfied with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and is in appeal before us.
4. Shri Sunil Chokhani, who claims the Director of the assessee-
company has appeared before us and submitted that notices of hearing
were duly given to the Tax Practitioner but the non-compliance was
due to carelessness of the Tax Practitioner of assessee. Shri Chokhani
apologized for non-appearance before the authorities below and
specific undertaking was given by him that the requisitions of
authorities below will now be complied with.
5. Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
6. We have noticed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer
are clearly un-reasonable. When the assessee does not appear before
the Assessing officer, undoubtedly the A.O. has to frame the
assessment on the basis of material on record, but the assessment so
framed cannot be an unreasonable assessment. The addition in respect
of sundry creditors during the year treated as bogus sundry creditors
seems to be an addition which is clearly unsustainable in law and not
warranted to the facts of the case. Just because the information in
respect of creditors is not on record, all these creditors can not be
treated as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer ou ght to have
probed the matter further. The Assessing Officer ought to have seen the
I . T. A . N o . : 3 0 0 / K o l . / 2 0 1 2
A s s e s s m e nt y e a r : 2 0 0 4- 0 5
Page 4 of 4
past assessment records and framed the assessment on the basis of
some reasonable presumptions. In any case, this aspect of the matter is
no longer relevant because Director of the assessee-company appearing
before us has now given an undertaking that the requ isitions of the
Assessing Officer will now be complied with, and we are of the
considered view that ends of justice will be met by ou r remitting the
matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give yet
another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and frame the
assessment de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a
speaking order. We also consider it appropriate to direct the assessee
to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer in expeditious disposal of
the appeal. Order, accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court
immediately upon conclusion of hearing today on 13 t h day of June,
2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
George Mathan Pramod Kumar
(Judicial Member) (Accountant Member)
Kolkata, the 13 t h day of June, 2012
Copies to : (1) Th e app ell ant
(2) Th e respon dent
(3) CIT
(4) CIT(A)
(5) Th e D ep artment al Rep resentativ e
(6) Guard File
By order etc
Assis tant Registrar
Income Tax Appe llate Tribunal
Kolkata benches, Kolkata
Laha/Sr. P.S.
|