SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 23(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee had declared an income of Rs.94,674, but the AO determined it at Rs.8,48,030 after adding Rs.7,45,000 for cash deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals) due to illness, and if the ex-parte order should be set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal filed by the assessee is direcgted against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata dated 28.03.2016 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed before him.
The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 26.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs.94,674/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.8,48,030/- after making an addition of Rs.7,45,000/- on account of cash deposits found to Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 4 be made in his bank account maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Teghoria Branch.
Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) disputing the addition of Rs.7,45,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits found to be made in his Bank account and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee with 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 vide his appellate order dated 28.03.2016 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 285 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 on the ground that he was seriously ill during the relevant period and due to his prolonged illness, he could not file the appeal before the Tribunal in the prescribed time limit. Keeping in view this reason given by the assessee, which is duly supported by medical certificates, I am satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any material objection in this regard. The said delay is therefore condoned.
While challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) during the course of appellate proceedings because of his serious prolonged illness and urged that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to put forth his case before the ld. CIT(Appeals) by sending the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals). As already noted above,
Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 4 sufficient documentary evidence in the form of medical certificates has been placed on record before the Tribunal to show that during the relevant period the assessee was suffering from serious illness and due to his prolonged illness, he could not appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) when his appeal was fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) for hearing from time to time. In my opinion, there was thus a sufficient cause for the non- appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and it is a fit case to give one more opportunity to the assessee to put forth his case on merit 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 one more opportunity of being heard. As undertaken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and shall extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 09, 2018.
Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 9th day of April, 2018 Copies to : (1) Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, C/o. Acquet Trading Pvt. Limited, 9A, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700 071
(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(2), Kolkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Bamboovilla, Kolkata-700 014
(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata, (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- ,
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026