Shri Arup Bikash Maity, Midnapore V. ITO, Ward - 4, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

ITA 353/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100103 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N O N E
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANES H, AM] I.T.A NO. 353/KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI ARUP BIKASH MAITY VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, W ARD-4, HALDIA (PAN:AHWPM4190L) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 23.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.11.2015 FOR THE APPELLANT: N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT: N O N E ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.111/CIT(A)-XXXIII/WARD-4,HAL/08-09 DATED 18.06.2010. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO, WARD-4, HALDIA, U/S. 254/251/144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2003- 04 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.11.2008. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THIS MATTER EX PARTE. NONE IS PRE SENT FOR REVENUE OR FROM THE ASSESSEE. REVENUE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR ADJOURNM ENT ASKING FOR ADJOURNMENT IN TWENTY MATTERS OUT OF TWENTY THREE TOTALLY FIXED IN THE CA USE LIST. THE REASON GIVEN BY REVENUE IN ITS PETITION DATED 23.11.2015 READS AS UNDER: I AM DIRECTED TO REQUEST TO THE HONBLE C BENCH , ITAT, KOLKATA THAT SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, SR. (DR) WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REPRESEN T THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES SINCE HE IS GOING ON A VISIT TO BURDWAN FOR OFFICIAL WORK ON 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2015. ACCORDINGLY, I AM DIRECTED TO REQUEST THAT THE CAS E MAY KINDLY BE ADJOURNED FOR A LATER DATE AS PER THE CONVENIENCE OF THE HONBLE BENCH. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE IS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON FRIVOLOUS GROUND AND THIS IS A REGULAR FEATURE. HENCE, WITHOUT GIVING ADJOURNMENT, THIS B EING A SMALL CASE, VERY OLD MATTER AND APPEAL IS PENDING SINCE 2011, WE PROCEEDED TO DECID E IT EX PARTE. 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 3 AS UNDER: 2 ITA NO.353/K/2011 SHRI ARUP BIKASH MAITY, AY 2003-04 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT F ILED AN APPEAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED ON 05.01.09. THEREAFTER APPEAL WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING ON 14.12.09, 18.01.10, 08.04.10, 26.04.10, 29.05.10 AND FINALLY ON 01.06.1 0. EITHER NONE APPEARED OR ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. NO SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN M ADE. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT IT APPEARS THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P URSUING HIS APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SEE N THAT NONE OF THE GROUNDS HAVE ADJUDICATED BY CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) ARE CRYPTIC ONE AND NON-SPEAKING. THERE IS NO IOTA OF MERITS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDERS BY CIT(A). THE DUTY OF THE CIT(A) IS TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER CONTROVERTING ALL THE FACTS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE AND D ECIDE THE ISSUE WITH REASONS. HENCE, WE QUASH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMIT THE A PPEAL BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTION. WE ORDER AC CORDINGLY. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 JD. SR. P.S COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SHRI ARUP BIKASH MAITY, PROP. M/S. NEW ARUP DISTRIBUTORS, KASBA, EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR, PIN 721 602 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-4, HALDIA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .