CHANDANA MUKHERJEE,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), BURDWAN

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 808/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chandana Mukherjee..............................................................Appellant [PAN: BFOPM 4583 E] Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Burdwan......................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: H. Mukherjee and P.K. Rai, Adv. Department represented by: Nicholash Murud, Addl. CIT, DR. Date of concluding the hearing : July 9th, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : August 8th, 2024 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2013-14 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 09.02.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 30.10.2018. 1.1. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee before entering into the merit of the case has submitted with regard to the delay in filing of appeal as Registry has reported that there is a delay of 372 days. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee

I.T.A. No.: 808/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chandana Mukherjee. submits that appellant being a senior citizen having very little knowledge about the technicalities of the e-mail and she had given email ID to the Chartered Accountant who had overlooked the e-mail and the appellant was totally in the dark regarding the appeal order passed by the ld. CIT(A) behind her back. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that appellant being a senior citizen has been suffering from various diseases and could not act on the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) within the stipulated time. His submission is that there was no mala fide intention rather it was bona fide. Hence, his prayer is to condone the delay. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also filed medical certificate of the appellant issued by Dr. Manas Kumar Goswami. 1.2. Ld. D/R did not vehemently oppose on the condonation petition. 1.3. Keeping in view the catena of decisions that the case should be decided on merit and not on technicalities and further, considering the factual position of the appellant, the delay is hereby condoned. 2. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is a salaried person, purchased a flat along with his son both having equal share. The purchase amount of the flat has been paid jointly to the seller as per sale deed but he has paid extra stamp duty of Rs. 33,11,595/- that is the Government valuation. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') added an amount of Rs. 4,31,600/- in respect of the income from other sources which have notional income of the appellant u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee had been dismissed on account of non-appearance of the assessee without adjudicating the matter. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the assessee preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2.1. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as passed order ex-parte in limine ignoring the fact that the notice did not properly serve to the appellant. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that ld. CIT(A) further committed Page 2 of 4

I.T.A. No.: 808/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chandana Mukherjee. wrong and did not apply his mind that in the case of the appellant Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act is not at all applicable. He has cited the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act in the case of Partha Mukherjee, son of the assessee and the issue was identical. 2.2. Ld. D/R only supports the impugned order. 3. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it appears to us that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating the matter only on this ground that the approach of the assessee amply shows that it is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, appeal is hereby dismissed. It is not in dispute that ld. CIT(A) on the identical issue in the case of the son of the assessee has allowed the appeal of the son of the assessee with regard to addition of Rs. 4,31,600/-. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A) has been filed by the assessee before us. 3.1. Keeping in view the facts of the case as the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the matter and the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the case of the son of the assessee being an identical issue, we are of this view to send back the case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with this direction to pass order afresh after hearing the assessee as well as keeping in view the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the case of assessee’s son Partha Mukherjee. It is further directed that order should be passed at the earliest. The order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside, the case is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 08.08.2024 Bidhan (P.S.)

Page 3 of 4

I.T.A. No.: 808/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chandana Mukherjee. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Chandana Mukherjee, Townsallpara, Post, Police Station and District- Purba Burdwan, West Bengal, 713101. 2. ITO, Ward-2(1), Burdwan. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. //True copy // By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

Page 4 of 4