Countryman Telefilms Private Limited, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 33(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1449/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1459 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARINDAM BHATTACHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT JALAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, B , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1449 / KOL / 20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 COUNTRYMAN TELEFILMS PVT. LTD., BENTINCK CHAMBERS ROOMNO.201, 2 ND FLOOR, 37A, BENTINCK STREET, KOLKATA-69 [ PAN NO. AABCC 1078 J ] V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ANKIT JALAN, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHERJEE, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 05-02-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-02-2018 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-23, KOLKATA DA TED 02.03.2016. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-3(2), KOLKATA U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VI DE HIS ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SHRI ANKIT JALAN, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHERJEE, LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. ITA NO.1449/KOL/2016 A.Y. 20 08-09 COUNTRYMAN TELEFILMS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO W D-3(2), KOL. PAGE 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2016 DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND PLEAD ED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT GIV ING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR BEFORE US PRAYED TO RESTORE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E LAW. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS AGREED WITH THE SU BMISSION OF LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE LD. CIT(A ) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER THE PROVISION OF LAW. 4. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER EX PARTE WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY R EASON FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME ON MERITS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN W RITING WITH REASONING. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT O N 19.1.2016 ON MEDICAL GROUND WHICH WAS GRANTED AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURN ED TO 9.2.2016 AS FINAL OPPORTUNITY. BUT ON THE SCHEDULED DATE I.E. 9.2.201 6 OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR AS WELL AS NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER FROM THE ABOVE IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT ASSESS EE WAS NOT MEDICALLY FIT. THE ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED WITH MEDI CAL CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1 9.1.2016 TO THE LD. CIT(A). THUS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM TO EXPLAIN HIS POINTS OF CONTENTIONS. TH EREFORE, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSE E ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDING AND ATTEND THE ITA NO.1449/KOL/2016 A.Y. 20 08-09 COUNTRYMAN TELEFILMS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO W D-3(2), KOL. PAGE 3 HEARING AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, APPEAL OF A SSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 21 /02/2018 SD/- SD/- ($ &) ( &) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S (- 21 / 02 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-COUNTRYMAN TELEFILMS PVT. LTD., BENTINCK CHAMBERS ROOM NO.201 2 ND FLOOR, 37A, BENTINCK STREET, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO, WARD-3(2), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOL-69 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 $$3, 3, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3,