Sukumar Chowdhury, Paschim Meminipur V. ITO, Medinipur

ITA 391/KOL/2023

AI Insights

The appeals by Sukumar Chowdhury were against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)), which included an assessment order under section 144 and a penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal found that the previous decision did not address the correct issues pertaining to the appellant and acknowledged the appellant's inability to file the appeal in time due to illness. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128207 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144; 271B

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Įी संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury...............................................................Appellant Srinagar, Chandrakona, Paschim Medinipur -721242 [PAN: ACFPC9625C] vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Medinipur....................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. P. Datta, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : November 20, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : November 20, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय ɮवारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 21.02.2023 & 03.02.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). ITA 318/Kol/2023 is relating to the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act, whereas, ITA No.391/Kol/2023 is relating to the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act. Since, both the appeals are pertaining to the same assessee, hence, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Earlier, these appeals of the assessee were decided vide order dated 4 th July 2023. However, the assessee thereafter filed a M.A No.49/Kol/2023 stating therein that the issue involved in these appeals I.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury 2 had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal, rather, that the facts/issues discussed related to appeal of some other assessee. In view of the this, the M.A of the assessee was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2023 and the order dated 4 th July 2023 was recalled and the appeals of the assessee were directed to be restored at their original number. 3. Vide ITA No.318/Kol/2023, the assessee has contested the confirmation of addition made by the CIT(A) of Rs.22,76,48/- on account of enhancement of the gross turnover, whereas, in ITA No.391/Kol/2023, the assessee has contested the confirmation of the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. 4. It has been brought on record that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.318/Kol/2023 being barred by limitation. The assessee had duly filed an affidavit, wherein, it has been deposed that the assessee could not file the appeal in time before the CIT(A) due to his illness. It has also been brought on record that the levy of penaly u/s 271B is the outcome of the order of the CIT(A) in quantum appeal bearing ITA No.318/Kol/2023. 5. In view of above and considering the affidavit of the assessee along with the medical certificate, we find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to incapacity of the assessee due to illness. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Both the appeals are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will decide the appeals of the assessee on merits. The delay in filing the appeal, if any, before the CIT(A) stands condoned. I.T.A Nos.391&318/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury 3 6. In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 20 th November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉÈटर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग[ /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सदèय /Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय /Judicial Member Dated: 20.11.2023. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Sukumar Chowdhury 2. ITO, Ward-38(1), Medinipur 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches