, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SH RI C. D. RAO, AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 2260/KOL/2010 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SRI A. N. BASU ROYCHOWDHURY VS ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN-AGWPB 1425 A) CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR ( )* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI V. N. PUROHIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S. I. BARA !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DURGAPUR IN APPEAL NO.26/CIT(A)/DGP/2009-10 VIDE DATED 25.11.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE H IS ORDER DATED 22.12.2008. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR DATED 22.12.2008, W AS NOT SERVED ON ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS OBTAINED AS CERTIFIED COPY ON 06.11.2009 AND QU A THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. THAT FOR THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS FORMALLY SERVED ON 20.01.2009 AND HER EBY DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HOLDING THE SAME BEING BEYOND TIME. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORIN G ASSESSEES REPEATED STRONG ASSERTION THAT NO NOTICE OF DEMAND AND ASSESSMENT O RDER WAS SERVED ON ASSESSEE AS ALLEGED ON 20.01.2010 OR AT ALL EXCEPT ON 06.11. 2009 BY WAY OF CERTIFIED COPY IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSEES REQUEST. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AS NOTE D BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON 20.01.2009, THIS FACT IS UNDER CHALLENGE AND CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING FINDINGS 2 ITA 2260K/201 0 A N BASU ROYCHOWDHURY. A.Y. 06-07 ON THIS FACT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IN LIMINE. LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF CI T(A) AFRESH AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTUAL DETAILS HOW AND WHOM THE ORDER WAS SERVED O N 20. 01.2009. 4. THE LD. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE CONDONATION PETITION IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH FA CTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT IT IS IN DISPUTE WHETHER THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON 20.01 .2009 AS CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE OR ACTUAL SERVICE ON ASSESSEE WAS ON 06.11.2009 AS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT NEEDS VERIFICATION AND CIT(A) WILL DECIDE THIS ISSU E AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN CASE THE CIT(A) CONDONE THE DELAY, HE WILL PASS A SPEAKING O RDER ON MERITS ALSO. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- . . !' , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 ./ $01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) !- 3 +4 5!4&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT SRI A. N. BASU ROYCHOWDHURY, C/O V. N. PUROHIT & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 32B, GANESH CHANDRA AVE NUE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA- 700 013. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DURGAPUR 3 . -$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), DURGAPUR 4. 5. -$ / CIT DURGAPUR 4 <= +$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,4 +/ TRUE COPY, !-$>/ BY ORDER, 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .