Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap(KZ)]
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘(SMC)’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ)] Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Pradhan.....................................………………………….............................................Appellant C/o. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 [PAN: ALUPP 5405 H] Vs ITO, Ward-1(2)Jalpaiguri...................………………………………………………….............Respondent Jalpaiguri. Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee. Smt. Sucheta Chattopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : September 11, 2019 Date of pronouncing the order : September 11, 2019 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – Jalpaiguri dated 14.12.2018 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
At the outset it is noted that there is a delay of 7 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 7 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard. I accordingly condone the said delay and proceed to dispose of the appeal of the assessee on merit.
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Pradhan 3. The assessee in the present is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 18.03.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,33,380/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide an order dated 30.06.2016, the total income of the assessee was determined by the AO at Rs. 12,41,170/- after making certain additions to the total income of the assessee.
Against the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 14.12.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised in this appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that none of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) fixing the appeal of the assessee for hearing was ever received by the assessee and such non receipt of notice resulted into non- appearance of the assessee when his appeal was called for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A). Keeping in view this reason given by the learned counsel for the assessee which is duly supported by an affidavit filed by the assessee confirming the relevant fact on oath, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the assessee when his appeal was called for hearing before the Ld. CIT(A).
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Krishna Pradhan I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex- parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11th September, 2019.