, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1074 / KOL / 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 THE SENCO JEWELLEY PALACE, 199, BIPIN BIHARI GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA-700 012 [ PAN NO.AABFT 5439 P ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-39(3)/NOW ACIT, CIRCLE-37, 3,GOVERNMENT PLACE, KOLKATA-700001 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI VIGYANESHWAR NATH DATTA, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI S.DASGUPTA, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 15-01-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02-02-2018 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11,KOLKATA DAT ED 19.05.2015. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-39(3), KOLKATA U/ S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SHRI VIGYANESHWAR NATH DATTA, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI S. DASGUPTA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND SUBSTANTIATED FOR EACH DAY. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND SUBMITTED THAT ONE ITA NO.1074/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 THE SENCO JEWELLERY PALACE VS. ITO WD-39(3) KOL. PAGE 2 OF THE PARTNER I.E. SH. RATAN KUMAR SEN WHO WAS LOO KING AFTER TAX WORK WAS NOT WELL. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AGE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS 67 YEARS. THUS, THE DELAY OCCURRED . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. AS SUCH, IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE US IN THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR OPPOSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. INDEED, THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). HOWEVER, NOW THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE MEMO OF APPEAL IN FOR M 36 WAS SIGNED BY SH. RATAN KUMAR SEN. THUS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE A ND FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND A DMIT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRE CTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE A SSESSEE SHOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AS AND WHEN CALLED BY L D. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 02 /02/2018 SD/- SD/- ($ &) ( &) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 02/02 /201 8 ITA NO.1074/KOL/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 THE SENCO JEWELLERY PALACE VS. ITO WD-39(3) KOL. PAGE 3 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1 . /APPELLANT-THE SENCO JEWELLERY PALACE, 199, BIPIN B IHARI GANGULY ST. KOLKATA-12 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-39(3)/NOW ACIT, CIR-37, 3, GOV T. PALACE, KOLKATA-001 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 $$3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,