Upananda Malik, Hooghly V. ITO, Ward - 1(3), Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 1157/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1184 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV SALUI

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1157/KOL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1157/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 UPANANDA MALIK,.................................... .............................APPELLANT C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SEVEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712 105 [PAN: ATRPM 5717 E] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,.............................. .................RESPONDENT WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOOGHLY, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712 101 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SAURAV SALUI, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SATYAJIT MONDAL, ADDL. CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPA RTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 31, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 31, 2017 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. .: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATA DAT ED 15.02.2017 PASSED EX-PARTE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN FISH ON COMMISSION BASIS . THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM O N 18.06.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,35,680/-. ON THE BAS IS OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 29.11.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RE-OPENED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147/143(3 ) VIDE AN ORDER I.T.A. NO. 1157/KOL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 3 DATED 29.03.2014, THE ADDITION OF RS.12,31,236/- WA S MADE BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TER M CAPITAL GAIN. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 147/143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISPUTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THERE WAS, HOWEV ER, NO SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTIC ES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FIXING THE SAID APPEAL FOR HEARING FRO M TIME TO TIME. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS APPELLA TE ORDER DATED 15.02.2017 PASSED EX-PARTE. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXPLAINED THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER:- THE APPEAL CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING AT 1 ST TIME BY LD. CIT(A)- 6. KOL ON 19.01.2017. BUT, SIR, YOUR APPELLANT WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMPLY APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A)-6/KOL. ON THE SAID DATE AS THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED AT HIS END ON 27.01 .2017. 2. THAT, SECONDLY THE SAID APPEAL AGAIN FIXED ON 0 7.02.2017. THE MATTER WAS HANDED OVER SOME ONE REPRESENTATIVE FOR PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THE CASE. HE REPORTED THAT HE HAS TAKEN DATE VERBALLY. BUT SIR, ITS LEARNT FORM ORDER OF CIT(A)- 6/KOL NON APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT (A) ON SAID DATE. AS SUCH ITS ILL LUCK THE LD. CIT(A)-6/KOL DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE FOR ONL Y ONE SINGLE OPPORTUNITY BEING PROVIDED TO YOUR APPELLANT. 3. THAT SIR, YOUR APPELLANT IS LAW ABIDING CITIZEN AND HAS LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE TAXING STA TUE. 4. THAT YOUR APPELLANTS NON-APPEARING OF APPEAL IS NOT DELIBERATELY AND/OR INTENTIONALLY AND WHICH IS BEYO ND HIS CONTROL. I.T.A. NO. 1157/KOL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 3 KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). I N THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, I SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR DISPOSING OF THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A T THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE CO MPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND SHALL EXTEND ALL THE POSSIBLE COOPERATION TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF T HE SAID APPEAL EXPEDITIOUSLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 31, 2 017. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI UPANANDA MALIK, C/O. S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SEVEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712 105 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOOGHLY, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. CHINSURAH, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712 101 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKA TA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.