SRI GAUTAM CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-34(4), KOLKATA

At the outset itself, Shri P.J. Bhide, FCA, ld.AR drew our attention to the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the specific ground raised by the assessee. i.e, Ground no. 2 raised before the ld. CIT(A) which reads as under:-

According to the ld. AR the assessee is an Advocate appointed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta as a Receiver of the property left by deceased/late Bhupati Nath Dutta. According to the ld. AR, the assessee has filed the R.O.I (return of income) in his capacity as Representative Assessee in the status of Artificial Juridical Person being the Receiver of the property of late Bhupati Nath Dutta and since the probate proceedings are going on, the assessee’s case has been taken for scrutiny by AO and has assessed the income, which action of AO was challenged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and raised specific ground no. 2 (supra) and since the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this issue, it should go back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

I have heard both the parties and perused the record. We note that assessee is an Advocate, who has been appointed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court as a Partition Commissioner Cum Receiver of the properties/Estate of late Bhupati Nath Dutta. According to the ld. AR, the assessee has no dispute in respect of the assessment of income made by the AO. However, the assessee is contesting that the AO has erred in computing the income at the highest marginal rate u/s. 164(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’ hereinafter) despite knowing the fact that the beneficiaries of the estate as well as their shares in the property/estate of late Bhupati Nath Dutta are clearly identifiable. Explaining this further the ld. AR contended that the Will which was left by late Bhupati Nath Dutta specifies the shares of the beneficiaries of the deceased’s Estate and therefore, the highest marginal rate should not have been imposed upon the assessed income. Therefore, according to ld. AR ground no.2 raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is an important ground, which has not been decided by him and therefore, necessarily has to be adjudicated by him. I find that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this issue. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeal back to him for denovo adjudication of all the grounds including ground no2 (supra) as raised by the assessee. Needless to say that adequate opportunity should be granted to the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) should pass a speaking order on each grounds raised before him.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.