Ashok Kumar Jhunjhunwala, Jaipur V. ITO, WD-39(4)), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1813/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 181323514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1813/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1813 /KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 ASHOK KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA,.......................... ...................APPELLANT 7, JADULAL MULLICK ROAD, KOLKATA-700 006 [PAN : ACSPJ 7561 K] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...........................RESPONDENT WARD-39(4), KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: A.K. TIBREWAL, FCA, 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 19, 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)-IV, KOLKAT A DATED 04.07.2014 PASSED EX PARTE, WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF PLASTI C GOODS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED B Y HIM ON 26.03.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,52,551/-. THE SAID R ETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR SCRUTINY AND SINCE THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HI M FIXING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX PA RTE UNDER SECTION 144 TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT SO M ADE VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31.12.2008, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.7,71,410/- AFTER MAKING VAR IOUS ADDITIONS. I.T.A. NO. 1813/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 144, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, THERE WAS AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FIXING T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME OVER A PERIO D OF ABOUT FOUR YEARS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED EX PARTE PRESUMING THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE SAME. AGGRIEVED BY TH E SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A GOOD CASE TO SUCC EED ON MERIT ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN HIS CASE AND URGED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO HIM TO PUT FORTH HIS CASE ON MERIT BY SEND ING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SINCE HE HAD SHIFTED TO JAIPUR DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HOWEVER, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THER E IS NO EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT HE HAD SHIFTED TO JAIPUR IN THE YEARS 2007 AND 2008 ITSELF WHEN HIS CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICES OF HEARING ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. MOREOVER, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME, DETERMINATION OF FAIR AND REASONABLE GROSS PROFIT R ATE, ETC. REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY SUCH FACTS NOW AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN T EN YEARS. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE I.T.A. NO. 1813/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 3 OF 3 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A FIT CASE WHERE ONE MO RE OPPORTUNITY CAN JUSTIFIABLY BE GIVEN AS SOUGHT BY THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE. IN MY OPINION, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144 A ND IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED EX PARTE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING THE SAME AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT WARRANT FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). I, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 19, 201 6. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 19 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, GAGAN PLASTICS, B-28, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 22, GODAM, JAIPUR-302 006 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-39(4), KOLKATA, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-IV, KOLKATA (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.