M/s. Sahal Business Private Ltd., , Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 9(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 588/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0675 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause; Set aside

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 588/KOL/2018 SAHAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD., AY: 2011-12 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) . . , . . ! , ' #$ ) [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHR I A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 588/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. SAHAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD. (PAN: AAECS4466K) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-9(2), KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 04.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.12.2019 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SUJOY SEN, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. RANU BISWAS, ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 15, KOLKATA DATED 03.10.2016 FOR AY 2011-12. 2. THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 374 DA YS. ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE A PPEAL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WE FIND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, SO, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT PROPERLY HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FOR BUTTRESSING THIS GRIEVANCE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SUJOY SEN, ADVOCATE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) NOTES THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE FOR HEARING DATED 14.06.2016, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION. NOBODY ATTENDED ON THE A PPOINTED DATE OF HEARING. ANOTHER NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED, FIXING HEARING ON 23 .09.2016. HOWEVER, NO BODY ATTENDED ON 2 ITA NO. 588/KOL/2018 SAHAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD., AY: 2011-12 THAT DATE. HENCE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY IN SUPPORT OF ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE WRITTEN SU BMISSION FILED ON 30.06.2016 ARE DULY CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THIS APPEAL . HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE TAKI NG NOTE THAT ON 01.07.2016 THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR H EARING FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WELL IN ADVANCE BY LETTER DATED 29.06.2016. THEREAFTER, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS LISTED ON 01.07.2016 WHEN THE LD. AR WAS PRESENT AT THE OFFIC E OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE FILE PERTAINING TO ASSESSEES CASE COULD NOT BE TRACED OUT SINCE SH RI ARUN KUMAR SINGH WAS HOLDING JOINT CHARGE OF THE OFFICE OF LD. CIT(A)-15. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) ASSURED THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WILL GO THROUGH THE WRITTEN S UBMISSION AND IF THERE IS ANY CLARIFICATION REQUIRED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL THEN HE WILL LIST THE CASE AGAIN FOR HEARING AND THEREAFTER, WOULD PASS THE ORDER. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO LD. AR NO SUCH NOTICE ASSESSEE RECEIVED. HOWEVER, FROM THE IMPUGNED DECISION IT COULD BE SEE N THAT THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS THE LEGAL ISSUE P ERTAINING TO THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IS A NECESSITY FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISED I N THE APPEAL AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR DOES NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION IF THE ASSESSEES CA SE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL AFRESH. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT HEARING THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE CASE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO LD. AR, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE NUANCES OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM WHICH RESULTED IN THE L D. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE AOS ACTION BY DISMISSING THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BEFORE HI M. WE NOTE THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER GOING THROUGH THE WRITTE N SUBMISSION. IN THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE BY LD. AR, DURING THE HEARING ON 01.07.2016, SINCE THE FILE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL COULD NOT BE TRACED OUT NO EFFECTIVE HEARING HAPPENED BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND R EMAND THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE 3 ITA NO. 588/KOL/2018 SAHAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD., AY: 2011-12 LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF APPEAL IN ACCO RDANCE TO LAW AFTER HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH DE CEMBER, 2019 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ABY. T. VARKEY) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20TH DECEMBER, 2019 JD. (SR. P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT M/S. SAHAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD., C/O, SALARPURIA JAJODIA & CO., 7, C. R. AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 072. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-9(2), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A) - 15, KOLKATA. (THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA