Deo Prakash Pandey, Hooghly V. A.C.I.T.,Circle-23(1), Hooghly

ITA 2272/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1561 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 101

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH VIRTUAL A COURT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2272/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 DEO PRAKASH PANDEY 12, DEY STREET,SERAMPORE, DIST. HOOGHLY-712203 [ PAN NO.AFOPP 9400 N ] / V/S . ACIT,CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY, PIN-712 101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI JAYANTA KHAWRA, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-12-2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14-12-2020 /O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKATAS O RDER DATED 18.07.2019, PASSED IN CASE NO CIT(A), KOLKATA-6/10254/2017-18 INVOLVIN G PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT THE ASSESSEES B EHEST. IT IS ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED EX PARTE . 2. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE ASSESSEES PETITIO N DATED 18.10.2019 EXPLAINING HIS FIVE DAYS DELAY TO A COMMUNICATION GAP WITH THE AU DITOR / COUNSELS OFFICE AND LACK OF TIMELY COMPILATION OF RECORDS, WE CONDONE THE IMPUG NED DELAY AS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT ON ACCOUNT OF CIRCUMSTANCES BE YOND THE ASSESSEES CONTROL. THE CASE IS NOW TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS THE REFORE. 3. WITH THE ABLE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A);S LOWER APPELLATE ORDER CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ITA NO.2272/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 DEO PRAKASH PANDEY VS. ACIT, CIR-23(1), HGY PAGE 2 ACTION MAKING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADDITION OF 5,43,250/-NEITHER FRAMED ANY POINTS OF DETERMINATION NOR MADE THE CORRESPONDING DETAILED ADJUDICATION CONTEMPLATED U/S 250(6) OF THE ACT. LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CIT (A) HAD ADMITTEDLY AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE TAXPAYER GOING BY THE FIRST PARA OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. 4. WE FIND NO MERIT TO SUSTAIN THE REVENUES FOREGO ING TECHNICAL ARGUMENT. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE LO WER APPELLATE ORDER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEES OR ITS COUNSEL HAD ACTUALLY BEEN SERVED THE RELEVANT NOTICE(S) OF HEARING OR NOT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CLINCHING FACT WHICH HA S GONE UNREBUTTED FROM THE REVENUE SIDE IS THAT CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED BEEN MERITS OF THE SOLE ISSUE (SUPRA) RAISED AT THE ASSESSEES BEHEST. WE T HEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ASSESSEES INSTANT L IS BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR HIS AFRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER LAW WITHIN THREE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING . 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14/12/2020 SD/- SD/ - (P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.GODARA) ( !) (#$ ') VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ( - 14/12/2020 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DEO PRAKASH PANDEY, 12, DEY STREET, SERA MPORE DIST. HOOGHL Y-712203 2. /RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIR-23(1), CHINSURAH, HOOGHLY-712 101 3. + . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . - / CIT (A) 5. / $$+ , + / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 3 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ , +,