Archana Roy, Kolkata V. ITO, Wd-51(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1523/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2923 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K N JANA
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH B , KOLKATA [ () , ,, , , ! ''# $% ''# $% ''# $% ''# $% ] ]] ] [BEFORE HONBLE SRI PRAMOD KUMAR, AM & HONBLE SR I GEORGE MATHAN, JM] !' !' !' !' /ITA NO.1523/KOL/2012 (%) *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ($- / APPELLANT ) - % - ( /$- /RESPONDENT) ARCHANA ROY I.T.O., WARD-51(3), KOLKATA -VERSUS- KOLKATA (PAN: ACNPR 5025 K ) $- 0 1 / FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S.M.SURANA, ADVOCATE /$- 0 1 / FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI K.N.JANA, JCIT, SR.DR % 2 0 3 /DATE OF HEARING : 18.03.2013 4* 0 3 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2013 5 / ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 24.09.2012 IN THE MATTER OF A SSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS ARBITRAR Y, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 12 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL WHEN THE APPELLANT TOOK SUFFICIENT PRECA UTION AND WAS VIGILANT, THE DELAY BEING NOT INTENTIONAL SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE APPE AL AND APPEAL SHOULD HAVE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,50,000/- BEING GENUINE GIFT RECEIVED FORM CLO SE RELATIVES BEING OWN BROTHER AND SISTER IN LAW AND RS300850/- BEING SALE PROCEEDS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IGNORING THE EVIDENCE FILED. 4. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE RELIEF PRAYE D FOR. 5. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTE R OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERI AL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME D ISCLOSING AN INCOME OF ITA NO.1523 /KOL/2012 2 RS.3,45,570/- MAINLY FROM PASSIVE SOURCES SUCH AS R ENT AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AN ADDITION OF RS.4,11,613/- WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN GOLD ORNAMENTS, BUT FOR THE REASONS WE WILL SET OUT IN A LITTLE WHILE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE ME RITS OF THE ISSUE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE T OOK UP THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). THE APPEAL SO FILED WAS SAID TO BE TIME BARRED BY 12 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED A CONDONATION PETITION AND PRAYED THAT THE SAID DELAY BE CONDONED, AS IT IS A BONA FIDE AND MAINLY DUE TO FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE T O OBTAIN CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER ONLY ON 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER THE APPE AL WAS FILED ON 09.02.2010. HOWEVER, CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY TH ESE ARGUMENTS. HE NOTED THAT WHILE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL IS 28 .01.2011 THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER ITSELF ON 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2010. HE THUS OBSERVED THAT AS AT THE TIME OF OBTAINING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER T HE APPEAL WAS ALREADY TIME BARRED WHICH, ACCORDING TO CIT(A), SHOWS THAT THE APPELLAN T SIMPLY DID NOT BOTHER OR ATTACHED ANY IMPORTANCE IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. AG GRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI S.M. SURAN A, ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.N.JANA,JCIT,SR.DR OF THE REVENUE. WE HAV E ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE APPLICATION. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS MAINLY FRO M THE PASSIVE SOURCES SUCH AS RENT AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AND THE MAIN AD DITION WHICH HAD BEEN MADE REFERRED TO IS ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT AND IS NOT A BUSINESS RELATED ADDITION. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED A REQUEST FOR ISSUE OF CERTIFIED COPY ON 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2010 AND THE PROCEEDINGS DAYS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WERE WEEKEND HOLIDAYS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMS TANCES AND BEARING IN MIND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SHORT DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) APPEARS TO BE A BONA FIDE DELAY AND C IT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REJECTED THE APPEAL AT THRESHOLD ITSELF ON ACCOUNT OF THIS D ELAY. WE, THEREFORE DEEM FIT TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICA TION ON MERIT AFTER GRANTING ADEQUATE ITA NO.1523 /KOL/2012 3 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. ORDERED, ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.03.2013. SD/- SD/- [ .''# $% , ] [ , ,, , ] [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [PRAMOD KUMAR] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( (3 3 3 3) )) ) DATE: 18.03.2013. R.G.(.P.S.) 5 0 ((7 87*9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ARCHANA ROY, 56F, RAJA RAM CHANDRA GHAT ROAD, PANIH ATI (N ) 24-PARGANAS, PIN.700114. 2 THE I.T.O., WARD-51(3), KOLKATA. 3 . CIT KOLKATA 4. CIT(A)- XXXII, KOLKATA. 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /7 (/ TRUE COPY, 5%/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES