Hindustan Architects, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-1(2), Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 1684/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9544 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K CHAKRABORTYJCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D SHAH LD
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1684/KOL/2016 M/S.HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA D B ENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE : SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. A.L. SAINI, AC COUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1684/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS PAN: AADFH1792F C/O D J SHAH & CO. KALYAN BHAVAN 2 ELGIN ROAD KOLKATA-20. APPELLANT -VS.- I.T.O., W : 1(2), KOLKATA. RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI MIRAJ D.SHAH, ADVOCATE, LD.AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE SHRI P.K. CHAKRABORTY, JCIT, LD.DR FOR THE REVENU E DATE OF HEARING : 09-01- 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 3-01-2017 ORDER SHRI. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER D T: 18-01-2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS), 6 KOL KATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO. 1684/KOL/2016 M/S.HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS 2 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 126 DAYS AND A SSESSEE FILED THE CONDONATION FOR SUCH DELAY OF 126 DAYS EXPLAINING T HE REASONS THEREIN THAT THE CONCERNED PERSON I.E. ACCOUNTANT BY NAME MR. AZARUD DIN AHMED, WHO SUPPOSED TO PURSUE THIS APPEAL WAS UNWELL DUE TO CH RONIC RELAPSING HEPATITIS AND WAS UNDER TREATMENT AND ADVISED TO TAKE BED RES T FROM 15-04-2016 TO 20- 08-2016 BY THE DOCTOR. A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE TO THI S EFFECT IS ALSO ENCLOSED. THEREFORE, EXAMINING THE SAME, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO CONDONE SUCH DELAY IN FILING THE SAID APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS C ONDONED AND WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE AO DETERMINED THE INC OME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.12,76,283/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS .5,88,170/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD.AR THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 1 43(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 14 4 OF THE ACT. IN CHALLENGE BEFORE THE CIT-A THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DOCUMENTS I N SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. BUT, HOWEVER, THE CIT-A CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE REASONS REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. TH US, HE SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE NON SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BE FORE THE AO URGED TO REMAND THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH C ONSIDERATION OF THE SAME. 4. THE LD.DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DO CUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT- A. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, THE CIT-A FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND REFERRED TO PARAS 4 AND 5 OF ORDER OF CIT-A. ITA NO. 1684/KOL/2016 M/S.HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS 3 5. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO DETERMINED THE INCOME OF ASSESS EE BY BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO TO EXPLAIN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT-A HAVING EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BEFORE HIM FOUND TH AT NOT ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. IN OUR OPINION THAT THE CIT-A COULD HAVE CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AS SAID DOCUMENTS WER E NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US REQUIRE FRESH ADJUDICATION IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS AS FILED BEFO RE THE CIT-A BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE REMAND THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCES, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13- 01-2017. SD/- SD/- DR. A.L. SAINI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 13-01-2017 COPIES TO : **PP/SPS (1) APPELLANT/ASSESSEE : M/S. HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS C/O D J SHAH & CO. KALYAN BHAVAN 2 ELGIN ROAD, KOLKATA-700 020. 2) RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2), HOOGHLY/DCIT, CIR-24, KHADINAMORE,P.O CHINSURAH (R.S), DIST: HOOG HLY 712102. (3)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITA NO. 1684/KOL/2016 M/S.HINDUSTAN ARCHITECTS 4