HAMIDA KHATOON,KOLKATA vs. DY.CIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
Per Bench
This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 7.8.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Bhubaneswar CIT(A),Bhubaneswar- 1/10396/2018-19 19 for the assessment year 2017-18.
None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, a written None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, a None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, a submission has been sent by the assessee, which reads as follows: has been sent by the assessee, which reads as follows: has been sent by the assessee, which reads as follows:
P a g e 1 | 5
ITA No.353/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18
“
P a g e 2 | 5
ITA No.353/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18
Ld CIT DR has filed adjournment letter, which reads as follows:
“
As the issue in this appeal is simple and do not require further clarification, the appeal is being disposed off on merits after considering the written submission filed by the assessee.
A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessee is an individual, who is a partner in M/s. Serajuddin and Co. A perusal of the Panchanama as has been enclosed with the written submission of the assessee clearly shows the assessee’s name in ‘Warrant”. Therefore, this claim of the assessee that there was no search in the case of P a g e 3 | 5
ITA No.353/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18
the assessee no more survives. It might be true that the assessee is staying at Kolkata and search has taken place at Bhubaneswar. It might be true that the search at the assessee’s residence premises at Kolkata had not been done. In any case, the Panchanama does not mention the address of the assessee at Kolkata. It is also noticed that the assessee has not denied the address mentioned in the Panchanama at Bhubaneswar. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no search in the case of the assessee. The search has only taken place on 21.12.2016 and the assessment year 2017- 18 is the unabated year. The assessment order has been passed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2018. The assessee has also filed her return of income and the assessment has been accepted accepting the return of income. This being so, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal has been filed on a technical ground which has not been substantiated by any evidence by the appellant, is found to be right. In these circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
6.. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 28/10/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 28/10/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)
P a g e 4 | 5
ITA No.353/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Hamida Khatoon, 38, Circus Avenue, 2nd floor, Kolkata-700017 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-, Bhubaneswar-2 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar-2 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 5 | 5
