Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-12(3), Kolkata & Ors
[Citation -2020-LL-0302-56]

Citation 2020-LL-0302-56
Appellant Name Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward-12(3), Kolkata & Ors.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/03/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags additional evidence • violation of rule
Bot Summary: The revenue as well as the assessee were aggrieved by the subject order of the Commissioner of Income Tax and preferred appeals/cross objections before the tribunal. The tribunal by its impugned order dated 31st May 2019 observed that there was procedural violation of Rule 46A(2) and of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. To be more specific, according to the tribunal the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was flawed for not giving an opportunity to the assessing officer to deal with the additional evidence as provided in Rule 46A(3). For this reason, the tribunal dismissed the appeal/cross objection before it. A proper order would have been to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax to rehear and redetermine the appeal complying with Rule 46A(2) and. We think that it would be proper if the said impugned order of the tribunal is modified by directing that the entire matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the same complying with the procedural formalities under Rule 46A(2) and within four months of communication of this order. The appeal and the stay connected stay application are disposed of by the above order.


OD1 ITAT No. 172 of 2019 GA No. 2456 of 2019 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE M/s. Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3), Kolkata & Ors. Before: Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI And Honble Justice PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE Date: 2nd March 2020 Appearance: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Mrs. Swapna Das, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Das, Advocate for appellant Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Sr. Advocate Ms. Abha Tiwari, Advocate for respondent Court: As issue involved in this appeal is very short, by consent of learned counsel of parties we treat this appeal as on days list. revenue as well as assessee were aggrieved by subject order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and preferred appeals/cross objections before tribunal. tribunal by its impugned order dated 31st May 2019 observed that there was procedural violation of Rule 46A(2) and (3) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. To be more specific, according to tribunal order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was flawed for not giving opportunity to assessing officer to deal with additional evidence as provided in Rule 46A(3). For this reason, tribunal dismissed appeal/cross objection before it. proper order would have been to remand matter to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to rehear and redetermine appeal complying with Rule 46A(2) and (3). 2 This, in our opinion, gives rise to substantial question of law. We think that it would be proper if said impugned order of tribunal is modified by directing that entire matter be remanded to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide same complying with procedural formalities under Rule 46A(2) and (3) within four months of communication of this order. We order accordingly. appeal (ITAT No. 172 of 2019) and stay connected stay application (GA No. 2456 of 2019) are disposed of by above order. (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.) R. Bose Datex Ohmeda (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-12(3), Kolkata & Or
Report Error