Raj Enterprise , Kolkata V. ITO, ward - 42(4), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1113/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8762 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHU MALATI GHOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: D K BANDYOPADHYAY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1113/KOL/2018 RAJ ENTERPRISE, AY 2007-08 , C(SMC) , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH: KOLKATA ( ) BEFORE . . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 1113/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 RAJ ENTERPRISE (PAN: AAIFR2870F) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-42(4), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 20.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.12.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI D. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, CA FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. MADHUMALATI GHOSH, ADDL. C IT ORDER THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA DATED 06.11.2017 FOR AY 2007-08. 2. AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, THE LD. AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AN EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND NO NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE SO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRESENT ITSELF THROUGH I TS LD. AR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PROMPTING THE LD. CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX PARTE. H E ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES I.E. ON 21.01.15, 13.02.15, 19.02.15, 13.01.2 016 AND 29.02.2016 BUT IN CASE OF HEARING ON 29.02.2016 THE POSTAL AUTHORITY RETURNED THE SAI D NOTICE WITH THE REMARK ADDRESSEE MOVED . HOWEVER, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT TH AT LD.CIT(A) ACKNOWLEDGED THAT LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 13.02. 2015 AND HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. AND THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARI NG IN JANUARY NEXT YEAR I.E. 2016 WAS SENT AFTER 10 MONTHS AND POSTAL AUTHORITIES REMARKED THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS. SO ACCORDING TO HIM, THE TWO NOTICES IN THE YEAR 2016 WERE NOT SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE. SO, ACCORDING TO HIM, 2 ITA NO. 1113/KOL/2018 RAJ ENTERPRISE, AY 2007-08 PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ASSESSEE NOT APPEARING BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER EX PARTE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCOR DANCE TO LAW. AND WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ON 29.01.20 19 AND THEREAFTER THE LD.CIT(A) TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (A. T. VARKEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH DECEMBER, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT RAJ ENTERPRISE, SATYAJIT PAUL, 24B, HAR ISH NEOGY ROAD, KOLKATA-67. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-42(4), KOLKATA. 3 4 5 CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR