Satya Devi, Kolkata V. ITO, Wd-29(3), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 535/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9492 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N O N E
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: K OLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM] I.T.A NO.535/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SATYA DEVI (PAN:ADTPD5776C) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R, WD-29(3), KOLKATA. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 31.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.01.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT: N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT: N O N E ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, KOLKATA, VIDE APPEAL NO. 41/CIT(A)-XVI/29(3)/11-12/KOL DATED 14.0 6.2013 FOR AY 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE APPEAL WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND OF THE WRONG SIGNATORY AUTHORITY. THE RECTIFICATION PETITION WAS MADE ON 13/05/13. THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAME AND REJECTED THE APPEAL ON THE TECHNICAL POINT WHICH IS VIOLATIVE OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELATED WITH THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.20,50,000/- AND THE AMOUNT WAS ACROSSED IN THE RETURN. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME THE LD. A.O. PASSED THE ORDER WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED. 3. FOR THAT THE INCOME IS NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESS EE THOUGH THE LD. A.O. ARBITRARILY ADDED WITH THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SAID ASSESSEE AND, THE REFORE, IT IS REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE GROUND BEFOR E THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY REGARDING 'DOING FORGE' IN THE RETURN BUT THE MATTE R WAS NOT CONSIDERED. 5. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT SEEKS KIND PERMISSION TO RAISE NEW CONTENTIONS AND GROUNDS BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL PETITION. 2. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE L D. DR HAS SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR EACH AND EVERY CASE THAT HAS BEEN L ISTED BEFORE ME TODAY BY FILING ONE LETTER MENTIONING THE ENTIRE CAUSE LIST IN IT IN TH E SMC B BENCH. THE REASON GIVEN IS THAT THE LD. SR. DR DECLINED TO RECEIVE FILES LI STED FOR HEARING TODAY FROM THE ADDL. CIT, SR. DR, ITAT, ADMN. AS HE WAS BUSY IN SOME OFF ICE WORK. AS I AM NOT CONVINCED WITH SUCH A REASON AND AS I CANNOT ALLOW THE BENCH TO COLLAPSE, I REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND DISPOSED OF THE MATTER EX PARTE QUA THE REVENUE. 2 ITA NO.535/K/2014 SATYA DEVI AY 2008-09 3. IN THIS CASE, NONE REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE PERUSED THE MATTER. THERE IS A DELAY OF 215 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. THEREFORE, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 4. I ALSO FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS DISMISSED THIS CASE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS I.E. THE MEMO OF APPEAL WAS NOT SIGNED BY T HE ASSESSEE BUT WAS SIGNED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. I DIREC T THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THIS DEFECT BY FILING FRESH FORMS AND CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF SUCH FORM AND THEREAFTER DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON MERITS DE NOVO AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31ST JANUARY, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SMT. SATYA DEVI, 21B, SADANANDA ROAD, KOLKATA-700 026. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-29(3), KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. ACIT , KOLKATA. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .