Alit Kumar Sarkar, Siliguri V. I.T.O.Ward-1(1), Siliguri

ITA 1214/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8428 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C J SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR,................................. .................................APPELLANT C/O. SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 [PAN: AIWPS 9731 Q] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ................................RESPONDENT WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PARIVAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI-734 010 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI C.J. SINGH, JCIT, SR. D.R , FOR THE RESPONDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JUNE 21, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 17, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 10.04.2019, PASSED BY TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SILIGURI, WHEREBY HE DISMISSE D THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 DEC LINING TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE SAME AND TREATING THE SAME AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2011-12, HE WAS FOUND TO HAVE MAINTAINED A SAV INGS ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK, WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-S HEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2011 AS WELL AS IN THE BALANCE-SHEETS AS O N 31.03.2009 AND ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 2 31.03.2010. TOTAL DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.35,45,270/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR A.Y . 2011-12, THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS P ROCEEDS OF UNDISCLOSED SALE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND APPLYING THE GR OSS PROFIT RATE OF 2.92%, THE PROFIT FROM UNDISCLOSED SALES WAS ESTIMA TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.1,03,520/-. THE INCREMENTAL PEAK CRED IT APPEARING IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AS WORKED OUT AT RS.2,72,078/- WA S TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL ADDIT ION OF RS.3,75,598/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECT ED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK. THE AS SESSMENTS FOR 2009- 10 AND 2010-11 WERE ALSO REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDITIONS OF RS.6,12,201/- AND RS.1,80,240/- WERE M ADE BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND 2 010-11 RESPECTIVELY SIMILARLY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK BEING PROFIT ESTIMATED ON UNDISCLOSED SALES AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE I N THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS. 3. ON CONFIRMATION OF THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS BY TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS), PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE AL SO INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 20 11-12 AND SINCE THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPO NSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SAID PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,31,286/-, RS.32 ,421/- AND RS.63,753/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 3 4. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A DELAY OF 1131 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE SAID APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 AND 560 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED APPLICATIONS SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY AN D DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE BY TREATING THE S AME AS BARRED BY LIMITATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAG RAPH NO. 4 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL FOR ALL THE THR EE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION:- 4. I HAVE PERUSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS, PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT BRING ANY SATISFAC TORY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SUBMISSION MADE IN RESPECT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. HE HAS ALLEGED THA T IT WAS MISTAKE OF THE APPELLANT OF THE A/R NOT TO ADVI CE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE REASON FOR NOT FILING APPEAL I N TIME AND THE DELAY HAS BEEN ENORMOUS, (I.E. 1131 DA YS FOR A.YS. 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 563 DAYS FOR 2011-12 ). SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED REASONABLE CAU SE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEA L IS DISMISSED ON THE ABOVE ISSUE. FURTHER ADJUDICATION ON MERIT IS NOT BEING CONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APP EAL IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APPLICATIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1131 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS FOR A.Y S. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS:- 1. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST PE NALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 31/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE LD. AO FOR THE AY 2009-10 ON THE ADVICE OF ITS AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE (AR,), LD. ADVOCATE MR. NRIPATI RANJAN CHAKRABORTY. IN THE ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 4 MEANTIME, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTIC E U/S.277 & 276C OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON 09/02/2018. SINCE THE APPELLANT'S AR SUFFERED FROM ALZHEIMER DISEASE, THE APPELLANT APPOINTED A NEW AR. MR. SWAPAN BHAWAL & ASSOCIATES (CA FIRM). IN THIS PROCESS, A TOTAL OF 863 DAYS (01/10/ 2015 TO 09/02/2018) WERE INADVERTENTLY LOST A COPY OF MEDIC AL PRESCRIPTION OF MR. NRIPATI RANJAN CHAKRABORTY, LET TER FROM SRI NIRMALAYA CBAKRABORTY (ADVOCATE), SHOW CAUSE NO TICE U/S 277 & 276C & PENALTY ORDER ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH FO R YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 2. THE APPELLANT'S NEW AR. CA SWAPAN BHAWAL, ALSO E NDORSED THE ADVICE OF NOT FILLING AN APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) AND APPEARED BEFORE THE PR. C.IT. SILIGUR I WITH HIS SUBMISSION AGAINST THE AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. LD. PR. C.I.T, SILIGURI PASSED THE ORDER U/S 279(1) DATED 1 2/03/2018 . MR.BHAWAL SHOWN LESS INTEREST IN THIS CASE ON AND A FTER 08/06/2018 SO THE 119 DAYS WERE LOST DUE TO THE WRO NG ADVISE OF MR.BHAWAL. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT FALL ILL FOR 32 DAYS. A COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION AND ORDER U/S 279( 1) IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAN TO APPOIN T NEW AR AND HAVE THE CONSULTATION WITH FEW TAX CONSULTANTS AND FINALLY APPROACHED THE ADVOCATE DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL . IN THIS PROCESS 47 DAYS WERE LOST. 4. THE ADVOCATE DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL ADVISED THAT DU E TO MERITS OF CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING A FAVOURABLE ORDER IN APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEA L IS FILED WITH CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1131 DAYS ON 07.11.201 8. AGAIN A TOTAL OF 21 DAYS NEED FOR OPINION OF LD. ADVOCATE , 20 DAYS FOR SUPPLY OF PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. ADVOCATE AN D 29 DAYS REQUIRED FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF APPEAL WITH DELAY CONDONATION FOR 1131 DAYS (863+119+32+47+21+20+29). 5. THE APPELLANT HAD REPOSED IMPLICIT FAITH IN HIS ADVOCATE SHRI NRIPATI RANJAN CHAKRABORTY AND CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT SRI SWAPAN BHAWAL AND SIMPLY PROCEEDED ON THE PRESU MPTION THAT THEY MUST HAVE TAKEN APPROPRIATE ACTION/PROPER LY ADVISED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT WAS WRONGLY ADVISED (EXPLAINED IN DETAIL ABOVE). THEREFORE, FOR SUCH WR ONG ACTION THE PART OF THE CONCERNED LD. ADVOCATE AND CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT, THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUF FER. 6. THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THE DEL AY OF EACH DAY WITHOUT SUPPRESSING ANY FACT. UNDER THE ABOVE PREMISES, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED, E LSE THERE WILL BE IRREPARABLE INJURIES AND LOSS TO THE APPELL ANT. ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 5 FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT, AS ON DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. 6. AS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 563 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WAS ALSO MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST PE NALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 31/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE LD. AO FOR THE AY 2010-11 ON THE ADVICE OF ITS AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE (AR,), LD. ADVOCATE MR. NRIPATI RANJAN CHAKRABORTY. IN THE MEANTIME, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTIC E U/S.277 & 276C OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON 09/02/2018. SINCE THE APPELLANT'S AR SUFFERED FROM ALZHEIMER DISEASE, THE APPELLANT APPOINTED A NEW AR. MR. SWAPAN BHAWAL & ASSOCIATES (CA FIRM). IN THIS PROCESS, A TOTAL OF 863 DAYS (01/10/ 2015 TO 09/02/2018) WERE INADVERTENTLY LOST A COPY OF MEDIC AL PRESCRIPTION OF MR. NRIPATI RANJAN CHAKRABORTY, LET TER FROM SRI NIRMALAYA CBAKRABORTY (ADVOCATE), SHOW CAUSE NO TICE U/S 277 & 276C & PENALTY ORDER ARE ATTACHED HEREWITH FO R YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 2. THE APPELLANT'S NEW AR. CA SWAPAN BHAWAL, ALSO E NDORSED THE ADVICE OF NOT FILLING AN APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) AND APPEARED BEFORE THE PR. C.IT. SILIGUR I WITH HIS SUBMISSION AGAINST THE AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. LD. PR. C.I.T, SILIGURI PASSED THE ORDER U/S 279(1) DATED 1 2/03/2018 . MR.BHAWAL SHOWN LESS INTEREST IN THIS CASE ON AND A FTER 08/06/2018 SO THE 119 DAYS WERE LOST DUE TO THE WRO NG ADVISE OF MR.BHAWAL. THEREAFTER THE APPELLANT FALL ILL FOR 32 DAYS. A COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION AND ORDER U/S 279( 1) IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAN TO APPOIN T NEW AR AND HAVE THE CONSULTATION WITH FEW TAX CONSULTANTS AND FINALLY APPROACHED THE ADVOCATE DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL . IN THIS PROCESS 47 DAYS WERE LOST. 4. THE ADVOCATE DILIP KUMAR AGARWAL ADVISED THAT DU E TO MERITS OF CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING A FAVOURABLE ORDER IN APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEA L IS FILED WITH CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 1131 DAYS ON 07.11.201 8. AGAIN A TOTAL OF 21 DAYS NEED FOR OPINION OF LD. ADVOCATE , 20 DAYS FOR SUPPLY OF PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. ADVOCATE AN D 29 DAYS REQUIRED FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF APPEAL WITH DELAY CONDONATION FOR 1131 DAYS (863+119+32+47+21+20+29). 5. THE APPELLANT HAD REPOSED IMPLICIT FAITH IN HIS ADVOCATE SHRI NRIPATI RANJAN CHAKRABORTY AND CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 6 SRI SWAPAN BHAWAL AND SIMPLY PROCEEDED ON THE PRESU MPTION THAT THEY MUST HAVE TAKEN APPROPRIATE ACTION/PROPER LY ADVISED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT WAS WRONGLY ADVISED (EXPLAINED IN DETAIL ABOVE). THEREFORE, FOR SUCH WR ONG ACTION THE PART OF THE CONCERNED LD. ADVOCATE AND CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT, THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUF FER. 6. THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THE DEL AY OF EACH DAY WITHOUT SUPPRESSING ANY FACT. UNDER THE ABOVE PREMISES, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED, E LSE THERE WILL BE IRREPARABLE INJURIES AND LOSS TO THE APPELL ANT. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT, AS ON DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. 7. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, APPEARS TO HAVE NOT APPRECIA TED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEA LS IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE APPLICATIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE APPEALS BY TREATING THE SAME AS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY PASSING A VERY CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE LEGAL POSITION IN THE MATTER. I T IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS TO BE CONSTRUE D LIBERALLY IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND NOT ST RICTLY TO DEFEAT IT. IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED VS.- SMT. NIRMALA DEVI & OTHERS [AIR 1979 SC 1666], IT WAS HELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE LEGAL ADVICE TENDERED BY THE MEMBERS OF TH E LEGAL PROFESSION/CONSULTANT AND THE ASSESSEE ACTING UPON IT ONE WAY OR OTHER COULD BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO SEEK CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE SAME COUPLED WITH THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTORS FO R APPLYING LIBERAL PRINCIPLES CAN BE A GROUND FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. IT WAS HELD THAT AN OVERALL VIEW IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE HAS TO BE TAKEN AND NONE SHOULD BE DEPRIVED FROM ADJUDICATION ON MERITS UNLE SS THE COURT OF LAW OR THE TRIBUNAL/APPELLANT AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE LIT IGANT HAS DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY DELAYED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO. ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 7 LIMITED VS.- NIRMALA DEVI & OTHERS (SUPRA), THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI & ANOTHER VS.- DCIT [398 ITR 250] CONDONED THE DELAY OF 2984 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES IN FILING THEIR APPEALS AFTER HAVING FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEES HAD ACTED BONAFIDE UNDER THE ADVICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NTS AS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT ON OATH AND THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE NOR A NY DELIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL ACT ON HIS PART. 8. IT IS OBSERVED THAT EVEN IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AS WELL AS THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES AND SINCE THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME WERE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED BONAFIDE UNDER THE ADVICE FROM HIS CONSULTANTS AND THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE NOR ANY DEL IBERATE OR INTENTIONAL ACT ON HIS PART TO DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE SAID DELA Y AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR DISPOSING OF THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON MERI T IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 17, 2019 . SD/- SD/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 ITA N OS. 1213, 1214 & 1215/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 20 09-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 ALIT KUMAR SARKAR 8 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI ALIT KUMAR SARKAR, C/O. SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SILIGURI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PARIVAHAN NAGAR, MATIGARA, SILIGURI-734 010 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SILIGURI , (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.