What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the medical certificate provided. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing, which was not adequately explained. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a partner's illness and submitted medical certificates.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the appeal should be decided on merits.

The Senco Jewellery Palace vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:

- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11,Kolkata dated 19.05.2015. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-39(3), Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28.12.2011 for assessment year 2009-10. Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri S. Dasgupta, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue.

At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeal which was not explained and substantiated for each day. Against the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us and submitted that one A.Y. 2009-10 The Senco Jewellery Palace vs. ITO Wd-39(3) Kol. Page 2 of the partner i.e. Sh. Ratan Kumar Sen who was looking after tax work was not well. The ld. AR also submitted that the age of the partner of the assessee-firm is 67 years. Thus, the delay occurred. The assessee also filed the medical certificate of the partner of the firm in support of his claim. As such, it was pleaded before us in the grounds of appeal

that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity to the assessee. On the other hand the ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

3. Indeed, there was delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was not duly explained by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). However, now the medical certificate has been produced before us which is placed on record. We also note that the memo of appeal in Form 36 was signed by Sh. Ratan Kumar Sen. Thus, in the interest of justice and fair play we are inclined to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue raised by assessee on merit after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is needless to say that the assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceeding as and when called by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

4. In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 02/02/2018 Sd/- Sd/- (�या$यक सद&य) (लेखा सद&य) (N.V.Vasudevan) (Waseem Ahmed) (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata, *Dkp, Sr.P.S (दनांकः- 02/02/2018 कोलकाता ।

THE SENCO JEWELLERY PALACE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-37, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments