UMESH KANKANI,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time-barred by 598 days. However, we find that all these days are of COVID period and in view of the Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Umesh Kankani Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction, it is not to be counted. The appeal has been presented in the Tribunal on 28.02.2022.

In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of ld. CIT(DR), we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee has filed his return of income on 05.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,58,190/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has passed an assessment order under section 143(3) on 16.08.2017. He accepted the returned income.

The ld. Commissioner took cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that assessee had made a claim of long-term capital gain amounting to Rs.23.25 lacs and claimed it as exempt. According to the ld. CIT, it was a claim based on Penny Stock and ought to have been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer. Similarly the assessee has shown a liability of Rs.1.05 crore from the ICICI Bank. This aspect was also not enquired. Accordingly he set aside the assessment order dated 16.08.2017 and directed the ld. Assessing Officer to pass a denovo assessment.

The assessee was aggrieved with this 263 order dated 23.03.2020 passed in A.Y. 2015-16. One of the grievances of the assessee is that such an order has been passed without providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It has also been pleaded that this order was passed during the COVID period and which is an ex-parte order.

While going through the record, we find order giving effect passed by the ld. Assessing Officer on 26.02.2021. This order reads as under:-

No doubt we are not required to take cognizance of this order because we are supposed to examine the impugned order dated 23.03.2020 passed under section 263. The scope of enquiry would be whether this order is sustainable or not, but after perusing the consequential order, we are of the view that our enquiry would be an academic only, because in the ultimate result, there is no variation in the income of the assessee. While giving effect to this order, ld. Assessing Officer has not made any addition. He again accepted the returned income. In this development, we do not deem it necessary to devote energy on an academic exercise whether 263 order was passed rightly or not.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 9th day of February, 2023

Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Umesh Kankani (1) Umesh Kankani, Copies to : 5, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata-700001