Sri Dulal Chandra Das, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 53(1),kolkata., Kolkata

ITA 2205/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 220523514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P NAG
• Assessee Lawyers: S CHAUDHURY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation
• Section: 68; 69; 234B

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 2 205 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2 2 05 / KOL / 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 6 - 20 0 7 SHRI DULAL CHANDRA DAS, ... . ................ ........ . APPELLANT BLOCK - A, SANTOSHPUR GOVT. COLONY, KOLKATA - 700 140 [PAN : A DSPD 9709 P ] - VS. - INCOME TAX OFFICER , ............................... . ...... ..... . RESPONDENT WARD - 53 ( 1 ), KOLKATA, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA - 700 068 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S. CHAUDHURY , ADVOCATE , FOR THE ASSESSEE S H RI R .P. NAG , JCIT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JU LY 1 5 , 2 01 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JU LY 30 , 201 5 O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) - X XXI II , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 11 4 / CIT(A) - XX XIII / ITO - WD - 53(1),KOL/09 - 10 DATED 20 . 0 3 .20 1 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ( 1 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C.LT.(A) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 2 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C.LT.(A) WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 3 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. C.LT.(A) WAS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C.LT.(A) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 4 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. C.LT.(A) WAS W RONG IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE MERIT OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER I.T.A. NO . 2 205 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 2 OF 4 PASSED BY THE LD. C.I.T.(A) IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 5 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG I N DITTOING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,885/ - AS 'INCOME FORM HOUSE PROPERTY' INSTEAD OF 'BUSINESS INCOME' WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 6 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG I N DITTOING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS.43,661/ - AS INTEREST ON TERM LOAN WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 7 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN DITTOING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.300,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTRODUC TION OF FRESH CAPITAL AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U / S. 68 OF THE I. T. ACT WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 8 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN DITTOING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.88,207/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/ S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 9 ) FOR THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE A.O. RS.17,000/ - AS TDS WRITTEN OFF WHICH IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. ( 10 ) FOR THAT THE INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B & 234C AMOUNTING TO RS.8,910/ - , 58,806/ - AND RS.1,664/ - RESPECTIVELY CHARGED MECHANICALLY IS WRONG & ILLEGAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW MY A TTENTION TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND STATED THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF APPEAL BY 47 DAYS WHICH IS BEYOND THE DATE OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 249 OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 14.07.2015, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM ACUTE DIABETIC HYPER - TENSION AND HIGH BLOOD SUGAR AND WAS ADMITTED IN APOLLO HOSPITAL IN CHENNAI AND DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL ON 20.06.2013 AND DOCTOR HAS ADVISED HIM TO TAKE COMPLETE BED REST FOR ONE MONTH AND, THEREFORE, WAS UNABLE TO CONTACT ANY LAWYER OR ANY INCOME - TAX CONSULTANT TO FILE HIS APPEAL BEFORE I.T.A. NO . 2 205 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 3 OF 4 THE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED IN H IS AFFIDAVIT THAT HE HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM ACUTE CONDITION FOR PROLONG PERIOD AND FOR THAT REASON COULD NOT TAKE PROPER CARE OF HIS BUSINESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE RECEIVED THE APPEAL ORDER ON 17.04.2013 AND HE FILED THE APPEAL ON 02.08.2013. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON DUE TO WHICH TH ERE WAS DELAY ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). I DIRECT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND TO ADJUDICATE ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY TO BOTH THE PARTIES , I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) . THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS ALSO DIRECTED TO TAKE A CONSIDERED VIEW AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNINFLUEN CED BY EARLIER DECISION RENDERED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN REPLY ALL THE QUERIES WHATEVER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) MAY DESIRE. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JU LY 30 , 201 5 . SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 30 TH D AY OF JU LY , 201 5 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI DULAL CHANDRA DAS, BLOCK - A, SANTOSHPUR GOVT. COLONY, KOLKATA - 700 140 I.T.A. NO . 2 205 / KOL ./20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 20 0 7 PAGE 4 OF 4 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 53(1), KOLKATA, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA - 700 068 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) (4) COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX ( 5 ) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( 6 ) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B ENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S .