What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to rectify the defect in the memo of appeal. The case was to be decided on merits thereafter.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on a technical ground that the memo of appeal was not signed by the assessee but by an authorized representative. The assessee also contended that certain income additions were not related to them.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on a technical defect without allowing rectification. Whether the additions made by the AO were justified.

Satya Devi vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM]

Hearing: 31.01.2017Pronounced: 31.01.2017

Date of hearing: 31.01.2017 Date of pronouncement: 31.01.2017 For the Appellant: N o n e For the Respondent: N o n e ORDER This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XVI, Kolkata, vide appeal No. 41/CIT(A)-XVI/29(3)/11-12/Kol dated 14.06.2013 for AY 2008-09 on the following grounds: “

1. For that the appeal was rejected on the Ground of the wrong signatory Authority. The rectification petition was made on 13/05/13. The Appellate Authority did not consider the same and rejected the appeal on the technical point which is violative of the natural Justice.

2. For that the assessee is not related with the long term capital gain of Rs.20,50,000/- and the amount was acrossed in the return. Without considering the same the Ld. A.O. passed the Order which is unjustified.

3. For that the income is not related to the assessee though the Ld. A.O. arbitrarily added with the total income of the said assessee and, therefore, it is requested to delete the addition.

4. For that the assessee had taken the ground before the Ld. Appellate Authority regarding 'doing forge' in the return but the matter was not considered.

5. For that the appellant seeks kind permission to raise new contentions and grounds before the disposal of the appeal petition.”

2. None was present on behalf of the Revenue. The Ld. DR has sought for adjournment for each and every case that has been listed before me today by filing one letter mentioning the entire cause list in it in the “SMC” “B” Bench. The reason given is that the Ld. Sr. DR declined to receive files listed for hearing today from the Addl. CIT, Sr. DR, ITAT, Admn. as he was busy in some office work. As I am not convinced with such a reason and as I cannot allow the bench to collapse, I reject the application for adjournment and disposed of the matter ex parte qua the revenue.

2 Satya Devi AY 2008-09 3. In this case, none represented the assessee. I have perused the matter. There is a delay of 215 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. On perusal of the same, I am convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal.

I also find that the first appellate authority has dismissed this case on technical grounds i.e. the Memo of Appeal was not signed by the assessee but was signed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. I direct the Ld. CIT(A) to give an opportunity to the assessee to rectify this defect by filing fresh forms and condone the delay in filing of such form and thereafter dispose of the case on merits de novo after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- (J. Sudhakar Reddy) Accountant Member

Dated : 31st January, 2017 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

APPELLANT – Smt. Satya Devi, 21B, Sadananda Road, Kolkata-700 1. 026. Respondent –ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata. 2 The CIT(A), Kolkata 3. 4. ACIT , Kolkata. 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

SATYA DEVI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-29(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments