Sri Samir Kumar Bhattacharya, Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle-23, Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 2126/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9182 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA PRASAD JCITLD
• Assessee Lawyers: V N PUROHIT FCA LD

Judgement Text

I T A NO. 2126/KOL/16 SAMIR KR. BH ATTACHARYA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,DBENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2126/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2010-11 SRI SAMIR KR. BHATTACHARYA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIO NER PAN: AGJPB7526R OF INCOME-TAX, CIRC LE-23 HOOGHLY (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY : SHRI V.N PUROHIT, FCA, LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, JCIT, LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF HEARING : 23-03-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-03-2017 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DT : 14-07- 2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS), 6, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROU NDS, AMONGST WHICH, GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO QUESTIONING T HE ORDER OF THE CIT-A IN PASSING THE ORDER EX PARTE. THEREFORE, WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE GROUND NO.1 AS PRELIMINARY ISSUE. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECE IVE ANY OF THE NOTICES AS MENTIONED BY THE CIT-A IN HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER I T A NO. 2126/KOL/16 SAMIR KR. BH ATTACHARYA 2 AND PLACED ON RECORD AN AFFIDAVIT DEPOSED BY THE AS SESSEE ASSERTING THE SAME. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE IN VI EW OF THE NON RECEIPT OF ANY OF THE NOTICES AND THE ORDER EX PARTE PASSED THEREON IS BAD UNDER LAW AND URGED TO REMAND THE IS SUE TO THE CIT-A FOR HIS CONSIDERATION. 4. THE LD.DR HAS OBJECTED TO THE SAME AND INVITED O UR ATTENTION TO PARA-3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ARGUE D THAT THE CIT-A ISSUED NOTICES TO THE ADDRESS AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO COMPLIANCES WERE MADE. THE LD.DR SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT-A. 5. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT-A ISSUED NOTICES TO ASSESSEE, BUT, HOW EVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NOTICES IN SUPP ORT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DEPOSING THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT-A FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 2 REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/03/ 2017 SD/- SD/- WASEEM AHMED S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 29 - 03-2017 I T A NO. 2126/KOL/16 SAMIR KR. BH ATTACHARYA 3 *PP/SPS: COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: SRI SAMIR KUMAR BHATTACHARY A C/O V.N PUROHIT & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, DIAMOND CHAMBERS, UNIT III, 4 TH FLOOR. SUIT NO.4G 4 CHOWRINGHEE LANE, KOLKATA-700 001. 2 THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-23, AAYKAR BHAWAN, G.T ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P .O CHINSURAH (HOOGHLY) 712101. 3 4. THE CIT(A) THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR