MATA PRASAD GUPTA/ L.R. MALTI GUPTA,HOOGHLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -WARD 2(1), ASANSOA, BURDWAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard and make due compliance.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(Appeals) for non-prosecution. The Assessing Officer had also made an ex-parte assessment under section 144/143(3) due to non-compliance by the assessee and his subsequent death.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(Appeals) for non-prosecution was justified, considering the circumstances of non-service of notices and the death of the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Date of concluding the hearing : January 05, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : February 03, 2017
O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M..: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur dated 14.03.2013 passed ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Assessing Officer under section 144/143(3) for non- prosecution.
The assessee in the present case is an individual, who was engaged in the business of trading of hardware items under the name and style of his proprietary concern M/s. Gupta Enterprises. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 31.03.2009 declaring total income of Rs.2,66,990/-. The said return was taken up by the Assessing Officer for scrutiny assessment and since there was no ./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 4 compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings and the assesese also expired during the relevant period, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 14.12.2010 passed under section 144/143(3) in the name of Smt. Malti Gupta, wife of the assessee as the legal heir. In the assessment so made, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.37,38,290/- after making the following additions:- (i) Undisclosed Investment in Rs.22,00,000/- purchase of Mutual Funds (ii) Rs. 7,50,000/- Undisclosed Investment in NSC/KVP (iii) Income from unaccounted Rs. 4,21,295/- sales (iv) Undisclosed Investment in Rs. 1,00,000/- CDR Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance to the notices issued by him during the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the said appeal filed by the assessee vide his impugned order passed ex-parte for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the wife of the assessee after his death at the relevant time could not comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. He also pointed out that even two of the three notices issued by the ld. CIT(Appeals) during the course of appellate proceedings were not served on the legal heir of the assessee as the same came back unserved with the remark “deceased” as mentioned by the ld. CIT(Appeals) himself in his impugned order. He has contended that the assessee thus was given only one effective opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(A) and since the same is neither sufficient nor ./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 4 proper, the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution is liable to be set aside. The ld. D.R. has not raised any argument to controvert this position. He, however, has contended that since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee even before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings resulting into ex-parte order under section 144/143(3), the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for making the assessment afresh with a direction to the assessee to make due compliance before the Assessing Officer. We find merit in this contention of the ld. D.R. and since the ld. counsel for the assessee has also not raised objection in this regard, we set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for making the assessment afresh after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As undertaken by the ld. counsel for the assessee before us, the assessee shall make due and proper compliance before the Assessing Officer in order to enable him to complete the assessment expeditiously.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 03, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 3rd day of February, 2017 Copies to : (1) Mata Prasad Gupta (Deceased), L/H. Smt. Malti Gupta, C/o. Somnath Ghosh, Advocagte, Seven Brothers Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712 105 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Asansol, 54, G.T. Road (West), Income Tax Office, Parmer Building, Apcar Garden, P.O. Asansol, P.S. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan-713 304 ./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 4 of 4
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026