INDRAJIT ROY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 51(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

It transpires at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 427 days’ delay in filing. This taxpayer has placed on record his condonation petition that he has been undergoing disturbed state of mind on account of his wife suffering from serious ailments for a very long period. It is further stated that she required frequent hospitalization in critical care which also had an adverse impact on his day to day business affairs. Learned counsel thereafter invited our attention to rectification proceedings/notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 28.04.2017 followed by his order to this effect computing a fresh demand 29.06.2017. Mr. Tiwari pleads that all the above factors coupled with the non-compliance of various procedural formalities in compilation of records make it clear that the Indrajit Roy impugned delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of circumstances beyond assessee’s control. The Revenue vehemently opposes the assessee’s condonation petition that the same nowhere explains the relevant circumstances and therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be declined on this count alone.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Suffice to say, the Revenue is fair enough in not disputing the assessee’s condonation averments citing various grounds as explanation for the impugned delay. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. Mst. KATIJI (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) settled the law long back that the cause of substantial justice must prevail over all technical aspects. We therefore condone the impugned 427 days’ delay in filing of the appeal. The same is therefore taken up for adjudication on merits.

The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal reads as under:

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.” Indrajit Roy 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. The CIT(A)’s order in para no.3 page 6 has been passed ex parte whilst affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making various additions totalling to Rs.70,56,736/- involving gross profits estimation in construction business @19.87% coming to Rs.26,65,470/-, income from undisclosed sources on account of cash expenses/investments of Rs.27,88,814/-, income from undisclosed sources in purchase of car of Rs.14,00,000/- and interest income involving sum of Rs.2,02,452/-; respectively. The Revenue’s case in light of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion is that both the lower authorities have rightly rejected assessee’s corresponding explanations. Ms. Biswas fails to indicate that the corresponding notice of lower appellate proceeding had not been served on the assessee qua the last date of hearing i.e. 10.01.2017.

Coupled with this, we notice that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order has also not discussed the issue as to in what circumstances, the assessee’s gross profits have been estimated at 19.87% in view of the preceding and succeeding assessment years. The factual position is no different qua all remaining issues as well wherein the lower authorities have nowhere considered all the assessee’s credits and debit entries in the bank accounts. We therefore deem it proper that larger interest of justice would be met in case the Assessing Officer re-examines all the issues afresh in accordance with law within three effective opportunities of hearing. We order accordingly. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on or before 30.04.2020 for further consequential proceedings.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.