M Madhumurty, Howrah V. ITO, WD-48(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 953/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1124 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.953/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 LT MARAM LAKSHMI NARAYANA, L/R M. MADHUMURTY, 2, HAREN MUKHERJEE ROAD, BELUR, HOWRAH-711 202 [ PAN NO.ABWPN 9878 L ] / V/S . ITO, WARD-48(2), 10, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA-700 015 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SAURABH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-10-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-10-2017 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKATA DATED 11.02.2016. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-48(2), KOLKATA U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.12.2011 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS APPEAL ARE A S UNDER:- 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, WE FIND THAT NOBODY APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. SO WE DECIDE D TO HEAR THE PRESENT APPEAL WHERE WE FIND THAT THE HEARING IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT APPEAR ANCE OF ASSESSEE OR BY LD AR. WE PROCEED TO HEAR THIS IN PRESENCE OF LD. DR. ITA NO.953/KOL/2016 A.Y. 2006 -07 LT. MARAM L NARAYANA VS. ITO WD-48(2) KOL. PAGE 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ATTEND THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS EX PARTE ON 29.02.2016. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER EX PARTE WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY R EASON FOR CONFIRMING THE SAME ON MERITS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING WITH R EASONING. BUT WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDE R OF AO WITHOUT DECIDING THE SAME ON MERIT. WE ALSO OBSERVE IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE AND FAIR PLAY THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM TO EXPLAIN HIS POINTS OF CONTENTIONS. THEREFORE, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WIT H THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE S HOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND SHOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DATES OF HEARING. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/10/2017 SD/- SD/- (% ') ( ') (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS ) - 26/10/2017 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-LT.MARAM LAKSHMI NARAYANA,L/R M.MADHUMUR TY, 2, HAREN MUKHERJEE ROAD, BELUR, HOWRAH-711 202 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-48(2), 10, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKA TA-15 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . %%, , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDE R/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ,,