BIJAY MURARKA,SILIGURI V. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), SILIGURI, SILIGURI

ITA 1204/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Bijay Murarka, against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeals were initially delayed by 50 days, for which condonation was sought and granted based on sufficient and genuine reasons provided in the affidavits. The primary contention in the appeals was the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appellate orders, attributed to the assessee's failure to respond due to his son's serious health condition, specifically Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome. The Tribunal, acknowledging the circumstances, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25414 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HUIDROM ROBINDRO SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A. K. TIBREWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos.1204 & 1205/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year:2013-14) Bijay Murarka Milanpally, Netaji Sarani Road, Ward No.25, Siliguri, West Bengal 734005 Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2),Siliguri Aaykar Bhavan, Matigara, Paribahan Nagar, Siliguri, West Bengal 734101 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AXEPM4499A Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, AR Revenue by : Shri Huidrom Robindro Singh, DR Date of hearing: 05.02.2205 Date of pronouncement : 24.02.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.02.2024 for the AY 2013-14. 02. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the condonation petitions along with affidavits were filed, explaining the delay in filing the appeals. Having considered the condonation petition and the contents of the affidavit, we find that the delay in filing the appeals to be for the sufficient and genuine reasons and therefore, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. Page | 2 ITA No.1204 & 1205/KOL/2024 Bijay Murarka; A.Y. 2013-14 1204/KOL/2024 03. The ld. AR pointed out that the assessment as well as the appellate order were passed ex-parte, when the assessee failed to respond to the various opportunities allowed by the lower authorities. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee’s son was seriously sick as he was diagnosed with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, which is a serious disease that affects the kidneys and also causes blood clotting and his treatment required constant attention and care and the appellate proceedings could not be attended. Therefore in the interest of justice and fairplay the counsel prayed before the Bench that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. Assessing Officer 04. The ld. DR on the other hand left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench. 05. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that non-compliance on the part of the assessee in the assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings was on account of prolonged illness of assessee’s son, who was suffering from a kidney and blood related ailments requiring continuous medical care and attention. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity to present his case on merit before the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the appeal before the ld. AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Page | 3 ITA No.1204 & 1205/KOL/2024 Bijay Murarka; A.Y. 2013-14 1205/KOL/2024 06. Since, we have restored the quantum appeal to the file of the ld. AO, consequential penalty appeal against the penalty order which is also ex-parte before both the authorities is also restored to the file of the ld. AO with the same direction. 07. In the result, the both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SONJOY SARMA) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 24.02.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "