Kalyan Mukherjee, Kolkata V. DCIT, Range-2, Asansol

MA 10/KOL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3991 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member M.A. No.10/Kol/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.107/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kalyan Mukherjee................................................................................. Appellant Alaktika Housing Estate, 2C/602, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156. [PAN: ADZPM2292C] vs. DCIT, Range-2, Asansol....................................................................... Respondent Appearances by: Shri K. M. Roy, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :June 10, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 10, 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee-applicant for restoration of his appeal in ITA No.107/Kol/2021. It has been pleaded in the application that the aforesaid appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non-appearance of the assessee on 30.03.2022. It has been stated that the assessee-applicant had not received any notice of hearing and was not aware of the date of hearing and an affidavit in support of the above contention has also been filed. 2. We have heard the rival contentions of the ld. representatives of both the parties. The ld. counsel for the assessee-applicant has submitted that the assessee has shifted to new residence and his address was changed, therefore, the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has opposed the application stating that the assessee, right from the very beginning had been negligent and reluctant to prosecute his case even before the lower authorities. That the present plea taken by the assessee is an M.A. No.10/Kol/2022 Kalyan Mukherjee Assessment Year: 2012-13 2 afterthought. In this case, the notice of hearing was sent through registered post to the assessee which has never been received back which means that the notice was duly served upon the assessee. There is no pleading of the assessee in this application moved under Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules that the address of the assessee has changed. The above contention finds mentioned only in the affidavit, however, there is no date mentioned as to when the assessee actually shifted his residence. Even in Para 8 of the affidavit, the assessee has mentioned as under: 8. That the petitioner submits that it may be possible that during the shifting process the department’s intimation through RPAD was misplaced for no fault of the petitioner/assessee. 3. In the above para, the assessee has deposed that during the shifting process, the notice of hearing sent through RPAD was possibly misplaced. Now coming to the impugned assessment order, the Assessing Officer in para 5.1 and 5.2, has categorically noted that on being asked to explain the source of capital introduced, the assessee did not furnish any reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Even on 18.12.2015, summons were issued to the assessee to examine him on oath but this time also, the assessee failed to appear. Since, the assessee did not furnish any reply or explanation to the Assessing Officer, therefore the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment accordingly. Even a perusal of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) would reveal that the same is an ex parte order and the assessee did not ever appear before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not offered any explanation for his non-appearance before the lower authorities even before this Tribunal despite service of notice upon him. The assessee has chosen to abstain from the proceedings before this Tribunal also, therefore, Tribunal vide order dated 30.03.2022 and after hearing the ld. DR and after going through the records decided the appeal of the assessee on merits. In this case, the assessee from the very beginning had remained reluctant and negligent to prosecute his case. The assessee did not offer any explanation/evidence in support of his claim either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A). In view of this, this application of the assessee seems to be M.A. No.10/Kol/2022 Kalyan Mukherjee Assessment Year: 2012-13 3 a result of afterthought, whereas, the assessee has not offered any explanation in respect of merits of the case at any stage of the litigation. Even no useful purpose will be served even if the appeal is restored as the assessee did not furnish any explanation or evidence during assessment or appellate proceedings. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee stands dismissed. Kolkata, the 10 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Girish Agrawal] [SanjayGarg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 10.06.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Kalyan Mukherjee 2. DCIT, Range-2, Asansol 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),