Pradip Dey, Hooghly V. A.C.I.T.,Circle-23(1), Kolkata

ITA 143/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8144 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 20

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 143/KOL/2020 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2015-2016 PRADIP DEY 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. I.T.A. NO. 143/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-2016 PRADIP DEY,........................................ ..........................................APPELLANT KALUPUKUR MAIN ROAD, CHANDANNAGORE, HOOGHLY-712136 [PAN: ADAPD0203F] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. .....................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY-712101 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLAN T SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI ROY, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE RESPO NDEN T DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 03, 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 03, 2020 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATA DAT ED 04.11.2019 PASSED EX-PARTE, WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O N 28.10.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.43,89,610/-. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE RE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE TDS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS REFLECTED IN THE RELEVANT FORM 26AS. HE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DIFFERENCE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE EXPLANATION FILED ITA NO. 143/KOL/2020 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2015-2016 PRADIP DEY 2 BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SOME AMOUNT OF TDS FOR WHICH CREDIT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT OFFERING THE CORRESPONDING CONTRACT RECEIPT S AS INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED SUCH CONTRACT RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.13,93,954/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS MADE BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE A SSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 16.11.2017 . 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE SA ID APPEAL FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORD ER DATED 04.11.2019 PASSED EX-PARTE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE NOTICES STATED TO BE ISS UED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FIXING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING ON CERTAIN DATES WAS EVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH NO N-RECEIPT OF NOTICES RESULTED INTO NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN TDS AS POINTED OUT BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO CREDIT CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TDS WITHOUT OFFERING THE CORRESPONDING CO NTRACT RECEIPTS TO TAX AS HIS INCOME. HE HAS URGED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO BY SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO CAN EXAMINE/VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. K EEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND FAIR TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT RAISED ANY ITA NO. 143/KOL/2020 ASS ESSMENT YEAR: 2015-2016 PRADIP DEY 3 OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR PROPER EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EX-PARTE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- PROSECUTION IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRE SH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO EXPLAIN/RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN TDS. AS UNDERTA KEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE COMPL IANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHALL EXTEND ALL THE POSSIBLE COOPERATION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH 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 AUGUST 03, 20 20. SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (P.M. JAG TAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT KOLKATA, THE 3 RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2020 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI PRADIP DEY, KALUPUKUR MAIN ROAD, CHANDANNAGORE, HOOGHLY-712136 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY-712101 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, K OLKATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.