Gobindram Taparia, Uttar Dinajpur V. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, Raiganj

ITA 1467/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5081 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Assessee Lawyers: VARSHA JALAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1467/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1467 /KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005 GOBINDRAM TAPARIA,................................. .........................APPELLANT M/S. RADHESHYAM & CO., P.O. KALIYAGANJ-733 129, DIST. UTTAR DINAJPUR [PAN : ABXPT 1325 R] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...........................RESPONDENT WARD-1, RAIGANJ, SBI BUILDING, KERNOJHORA, UTTAR DINAJPUR-733 130 APPEARANCES BY: MISS VARSHA JALAN, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 07, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 15, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JALPAIGUR I DATED 05.10.2015 PASSED EX-PARTE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE 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 29.10.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,33,580/-. IN THE ASS ESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 17.11.2006 , THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AT RS.10,58,615/- AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. AGAINST THE SAID OR DER, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WHO DISMISSED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN SIGNED BY THE AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE OF I.T.A. NO. 1467/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005 PAGE 2 OF 3 THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTED THAT EVEN THE OTHER DOC UMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE FORM NO. 35 WERE NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WERE SIGNED BY HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE TR IBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO H IM TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE DEFECT IN FORM NO. 35 AND TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER REMOVAL OF THE DEFECT BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A S PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE BY FIXING THE CASE ON 27.01.2015. HOWEVER, NOBODY ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE SAID DATE AS WELL AS ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATES WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.02.2015 AND 07.08.2015. AS NOTED BY T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL MEMO DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICES OF TH E HEARINGS WERE DULY SERVED. HE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON- PROSECUTION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS FIXED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DUE TO SERIOUS AI LMENTS BECAUSE OF WHICH HE WAS BED-RIDDEN IN HIS HOME TOWN AT SUJANGA RH, RAJASTHAN AND HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT, THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE FILED BY HER TO CORROBORATE WHAT IS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. SHE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFE R ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) DESPITE A SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS PER THE DIRECTION OF I.T.A. NO. 1467/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE TRIBUNAL. IN MY OPINION, IT IS THUS A CASE OF N EGLIGENCE AND CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUFFICIENT OR REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILURE OF T HE ASSESESE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FIX ING THE HEARING OF THE ASSESSEE ON THREE OCCASIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, I DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 15, 201 6. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI GOBINDRAM TAPARIA, M/S. RADHESHYAM & CO., P.O. KALIYAGANJ-733 129, DIST. UTTAR DINAJPUR (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGANJ, SBI BUILDING, KERNOJHORA, UTTAR DINAJPUR-733 130 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)- JALPAIGURI (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.