RUMA ROY,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2450/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 April 2019AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to notices being sent to an incorrect address. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The CIT(Appeals) had issued notices to the assessee's old address as per PAN, which the assessee had left.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was justified when notices were sent to an incorrect address. Whether the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 25.09.2018 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

2.

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in the business of running a Gas Agency. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by her on 25.09.2015 declaring a total income of Rs.13,25,840/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 26.12.2017, the total income of the assessee Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ruma Roy, Howrah was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.25,07,760/- after making two additions of Rs.1,97,810/- and Rs.9,84,110/- on account of unexplained expenditure and unexplained cash credit under section 68 respectively.

3.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no 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(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution vide his appellate order dated 25.09.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that both the notices of hearing fixed on 21.08.2018 and 24.09.2018 were sent by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the assessee at the address given in Permanent Account No. and not to the address given by the assessee in Form No. 35 for sending the notices. He has submitted that the address given in PAN was the old address which the assessee has already left and since the notices sent by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to the said address could not be received by the assessee, the same could not be complied with. Keeping in view the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). I accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall get her old address changed in PAN.

Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Ruma Roy, Howrah

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 02, 2019.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →