IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: K OLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] I.T.A NO.2375/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SUTAPA CHATTERJEE VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD- 50(3), KOL. (PAN: ACHPC4118L) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 22.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.02.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCI T, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA VIDE APPEAL NO. 130/XXXII/09-10/50(3)/KOL DATED 08.11.2012. AS SESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WD-50(3), KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23.12. 2009. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 251 DAYS AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION STATING THAT THE PER SON IN CHARGE WHO LOOKED AFTER THE INCOME TAX MATTER SUDDENLY LEFT THE JOB AND BEING A WOMAN TAX PAYER SHE HAD TO FACE HURDLES IN PURSUING HIM TO HAND OVER THE FILES/DOCUMENTS. ULTIMATELY H E HANDED OVER THE FILES AND PAPERS ON 11.09.2013 AND AFTER THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED THIS A PPEAL ON 16.09.2013. THIS UNINTENTIONAL DELAY WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF ASSESSEE AND SHE REQUESTE D THE BENCH TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING BY HER LETTER DATED 16.09.20 13. IN TERM OF THE ABOVE, LD. SR. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE DELAY CAN BE CONDONED AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE DELAY OF 251 DAYS IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF COMMISSION INCOM E AT RS.3,51,346/-. 4. I HAVE HEARD LD. SR. DR AND GONE THROUGH FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT THE CIT(A) OR THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE REVI SED RETURN. BUT THE AO OR THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO LESS RECEIPT OF COMMISSION AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS IN WHICH BOTH THE AUTHORITI ES FAILED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-DECIDE THE S AME AFTER TAKING EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO.2375/KOL/2013 SUTAPA CHATTERJEE, AY 2007-08 2 ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG ALSO. THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. THE NEXT TWO ISSUES ARE IN REGARD TO DISALLOWANC E OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AT RS.38,627/- AND DIESEL EXPENSES OF RS.78,600/- CONFIRMED BY CIT (A). I FIND THAT BOTH THE EXPENSES I.E. TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND DIESEL EXPENSES WERE ADDED B Y THE AO ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED TELEPHONE EXPENSES FOR THE REASON THAT THE BILL IS IN THE NAME OF HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE DIESEL EXPENSES WERE DISAL LOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE CAR IS ON RENT. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY CRYPT IC ORDER. I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION. HENCE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF L OWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND TO PASS A SPEA KING ORDER AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE ISSUES OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2016 JD. SR. P.S COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SM. SUTAPA CHATTERJEE, CD-100, SECTOR-1 , SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700064. 2. RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-50(3), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A) , KOLKATA 4. CIT , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .