Mr Prasanta Kumar Deka, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-27(4), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1252/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4086 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVASH ROY JCITSRDR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 125 2 / KOL / 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 MR. PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA FLAT NO. 1/46, VIVEK NAGAR, JHEEL ROAD, P.O. KASBA, KOLKATA-700 075 [ PAN NO. AHEPD 6593 J ] V/S . ITO WARD-27(4), 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA, KOLKATA-700 014 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PRAVASH ROY, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-12-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-12-2016 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, KOLKATA DATED 10.03.2016. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-27(4), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 25.03.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT NONE APPEARE D FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING , NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THOUG H, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE IS THE SAME AS THAT CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY US IN THE CASE OF KAMALESH MAITY VS. ITO WARD-27(2) HALDIA (IN ITA NO.1251/KOL/2016 DATED 07.12.2016) HEARD TODAY . IN VIEW OF THIS IDENTITY OF SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL THE HEARING IN THE APPE AL WAS PROCEEDED WITH. ITA NO.1252/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 MR. PRASANTA KR. DEKA VS. ITO WD-27(4), KO L PAGE 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR, THOUGH WHO RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS EX PARTE WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT HAVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS FILE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WI TH THE DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING THE REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT NEEDLESS TO MENTION TH AT ASSESSEE SHOULD CO- OPERATE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 21/ 12/2016 SD/- SD/- ( !') ( !') (A.T.VARKEY) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S $!% &- 21 / 12 /201 6 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-KAMALESH MAITY, UTTAR DARUA, CONTAI, PUR BA MEDINIPUR, BAUDEVPUR, KHANJANCHAK, HA LDIA, PIN-721 602 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-27(2) HALDIA 3. %.%/0 1 1 2 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 1 1 2- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 567 /0, 1 /0 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 7:; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 1! , /TRUE COPY/ / % 1 /0 ,