DCIT, Circle - 23, Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Partha Pratim Dasgupta, South 24 Parganas

ITA 1292/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 129223514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHOWDHURY

Judgement Text

1 , B , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH- B, KOL KATA [ , . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . , , , , '# ] BEFORE SRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI C.D. RAO, AC COUNTANT MEMBER $ $ $ $ / ITA NO. 1292 (KOL) OF 2010 %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-23, KOLKATA. PARTHA PRATIM DASGUPTA, KOLKATA. (PAN-ADJPD9296R) (+, / APPELLANT ) - - - VERSUS - (/0+,/ RESPONDENT ) +, 1 2 '/ FOR THE APPELLANT: / SRI R. GUPTA /0+, 1 2 ' / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SRI R. CHOWDHURY 3 1 !# / DATE OF HEARING : 07/12/2011 4' 1 !# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/12/2011 '5 / ORDER ( ), (N. VIJAYAKUMARAN), JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A)- XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 19/03/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT READS AS UNDER :- THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E LD. CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOL ERRED IN BEING HELD THAT THE ORDER AS LEGAL INFIRMITY AND PR OCEEDING INVALID. ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICES DISPATCHED BY REGD. POST EIT HER NOT RECEIVED BACK WITH ENDORSEMENT REFUSED SHOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED SER VICE (154 ITR 556) RAMESH KHOSLA VS. ITO (P&H). 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL HEL D THAT AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER SHEET NOTING ON 29/2/2006, NEIT HER THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) NOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE WERE SERVED ON T HE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THE A.O. MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN NEW ADDRESS, I.E. AT GURGAON, BUT THE ADDRESS ON THE NO TICES INDICATE THAT THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEES OLD ADDRESS AT NEW DELHI. T HE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) 2 COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE. FURTHER, WE SEE THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IS SUPPORTED BY TH E DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LUNAR DIAMONDS LTD. [(2006) 281 ITR 1 (DEL)], THE RATIO OF WHICH IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE SEE NO JUS TIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 6 '5 #' 7 8 69 THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9/12/XI SD/- SD/- ( . .. . ! ! ! !. .. . ) '# ( ) (C.D. RAO), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( (!# !# !# !#) )) ) DATE: 9 -12-2011 '5 1 /%% :'';- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. +, / THE APPELLANT : D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 23, KOLKATA. 2 . /0+, / THE RESPONDENT : PARTHA PRATIM DASGUPTA, C/O. TAPAN KR. MUKHERJEE, JALKHURA, M AHESHTALA, NEAR MAMANPUR KALITALA, 24-PARGANAS (S)-700 141. 3. %5 () : THE CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA. 4 . %5 / THE C.I.T., KOL , KOLKATA. 5. >%8 /% / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 6. GUARD FILE . 0 /%/ TRUE COPY, '5/ BY ORDER, (DKP) ? / DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR .