Prasanta Kumar Ghosal, Kolkata V. I.T.O.,Ward-22(1), Kolkata

ITA 1002/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8755 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTA KHANRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH ROY CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (SMC), KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ)] I.T.A. NO. 1002/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL....................................................................APPELLANT 115/2A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 700 014. [PAN: AMSPG 6878 N] VS ITO, WARD 22(1), KOLKATA................................RESPONDENT 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA 700 016. APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOMNATH ROY CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI JAYANTA KHANRA, JCIT, SR. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 19, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 19, 2019 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 6, KOLKATA DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED EX-PARTE WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,91,193/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 47 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, I AM SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF 47 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THIS REGARD. THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED AND THE SAID APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OF ON MERIT. 2 I.T.A. NO. 1002/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 08.05.2016 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,95,820/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 25.11.2016, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS. 30,69,871/- AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 28,74,051/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE OF ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 22, GARIAHAT ROAD, BALLYGUNGE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE ALSO INITIATED BY THE AO AND SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM, DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE A PENALTY OF RS. 5,91,193/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE SAID APPEAL FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED EX-PARTE THEREBY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR 3 I.T.A. NO. 1002/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL BY PROFESSION AND ALTHOUGH THE ENTIRE MATTER WAS ENTRUSTED BY HIM TO THE CONSULTANT, THE SAID CONSULTANT DID NOT REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PROPERLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE NON-COMPLINACE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THUS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EARLIER ENGAGED BY HIM. HE HAS URGED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY THEREFORE BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PUTFORTH HIS CASE PROPERLY BEFORE THE AO BY SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I CONSIDER IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PUTTING FORTH HIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX-PARTE IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE AO AND SHALL EXTEND ALL THE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH EXPEDITIOUSLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 19/11/2019 BISWAJIT, SR. PS 4 I.T.A. NO. 1002/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSAL, 115/2A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA 700 014. 2. ITO, WARD 22(1), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. DR TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / H.O.O. ITAT, KOLKATA