M/s Eastern Steel corporation, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 630/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1430 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Application of stay
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2 008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 & S.A. NOS.89, 90 & 91/KOL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IT A NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 10-11 & 11-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL./2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 M/S. EASTERN STEEL CORPORATION,.................... ............APPELLANT 2, N.C. DUTTA SARANI, SAGAR ESTATE, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN :AAAFE 7805 M] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ......................RESPONDENT WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-700 001 & S.A. NOS. 89, 90 & 91/KOL./2017 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL./2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 M/S. EASTERN STEEL CORPORATION,.................... ...............PETITIONER 2, N.C. DUTTA SARANI, SAGAR ESTATE, KOLKATA-700 001 [PAN :AAAFE 7805 M] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ........................RESPONDENT WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSE E/PETITIONER SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARYA, ADDL. CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 22, 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : BY THESE STAY APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 20 10-11 & 2011-12 2 ITA NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2 008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 & S.A. NOS.89, 90 & 91/KOL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IT A NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 10-11 & 11-12 AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, THE SAME ARE B EING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE CORRESPONDING APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BEING I.T.A. NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNERSHI P FIRM, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON AND STEE L. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD MAINTAINED THREE BANK ACCOUNTS WITH ICICI BANK HAVI NG SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTIONS AND ALTHOUGH IT HAD TAXABLE INCOME FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE S AID YEARS WERE FILED BY IT. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 ON 27.06.2012, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.08.2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2010-11 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.45,320/- AND RS.37,180/- RESPECTIVELY. THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 18.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS.31,070/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ICIC I BANK AND SINCE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, HE TREATED TH E CASH DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITIONS OF RS.3,94,94,300/-, RS.4,76,66,029/- AND RS.5,54,61,949/- WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSME NTS MADE UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDERS DATED 29. 03.2014. 3. AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) AND SINCE THERE WAS 3 ITA NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2 008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 & S.A. NOS.89, 90 & 91/KOL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IT A NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 10-11 & 11-12 NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NO TICES ISSUED BY HIM FIXING THE SAID APPEALS FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TI ME, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 30.01.2017 PASSED EX-PARTE . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE COMM ON GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EX- PARTE . IN THIS REGARD, AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PARTNER OF TH E ASSESSEE-FIRM IS FILED BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THEREIN THE REASONS FOR THE NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS UNDER:- I, VIJAY KUMAR NOPANY, PARTNER OF M/S EASTERN STEE L CORPORATION, SON OF LATE BRAHMANAND NOPANY, AGED AB OUT 56 YEARS; BY RELIGION HINDU, RESIDING AT SALT LAKE, GC -8I, KOLKATA - 700106 DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND STATE AS FOLLO WS- 1. THAT I AM ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF MLS EASTERN STE EL CORPORATION. AS SUCH, I AM COMPETENT TO SWEAR THIS AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE SAID FIRM. 2. THAT THE .AFORESAID FIRM BEING AGGRIEVED WITH TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29.03.2014 RELATING TO A.Y. S: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD.CJT(A). 3. THAT THE SAID APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY PASSING EX-PARTE ORDERS DUE TO NON APPEARANCE OF ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE SAID FIRM ON THE DATES FIXE D FOR HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. THAT SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SINHA ROY, ADVOCATE, RES IDENT OF FARM SIDE, POST- CHINSURAH, DISTRICT-HOOGHLY WAS ENGAGED IN THE INSTANT MATTER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WE WERE UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT P ROPER 4 ITA NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2 008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 & S.A. NOS.89, 90 & 91/KOL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IT A NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 10-11 & 11-12 COMPLIANCES WERE MADE FROM THE END OF THE SAID SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SINHA ROY, ADVOCATE. 5. THAT AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT( A) ON 20.03.2017, IT CAME TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT NO COMPLI ANCE WAS MADE BY THE SAID SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SINHA ROY, ADVOCATE. 6. THAT ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI LAX MI NARAYAN SINHA ROY, ADVOCATE WAS VERY ILL AND HE EXP IRED ON 04.02.2017 AND THUS NO COMPLIANCES COULD BE MADE BY HIM. 7. THAT I GIVE AN UNDERTAKING THAT PROPER COMPLIANC ES SHALL BE MADE IN CASE THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE IS SE NT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THAT THE FACTS STATED IN PARAS 1 TO 6 ARE TRUE T O THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND PARAGRAPH 7 IS AN UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY ME. PLACE: KOLKATA DATE: 16.09.2017 SD/- PARTNER DEPONENT 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE NON-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WH EN ITS APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME AND EVEN THE LD . D.R. HAS NOT RAISED ANY CONTENTION TO DISPUTE THIS POSITION. WE, THEREF ORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION EX-PARTE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE US AND FURTH ER REITERATED BY ITS LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEA LS EXPEDITIOUSLY. 5 ITA NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2 008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-2012 & S.A. NOS.89, 90 & 91/KOL/2017 (ARISING OUT OF IT A NOS. 630, 631 & 632/KOL/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009, 10-11 & 11-12 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SESE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. AS A RESULT OF THE DISPOSAL OF THE CORRESPONDING APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE, THE STAY APPLICATIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE STAY APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED WHILE ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. EASTERN STEEL CORPORATION, 2, N.C. DUTTA SARANI, SAGAR ESTATE, KOLKATA-700 001 2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-44(1), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) CIT(APPEALS)-13, KOLKATA (4) CIT- , KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ETC SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.