SRIDHAR SAMANTA,MALDA vs. ACIT, CIR-MALDA, MALDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1391/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 September 2016AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to repeated adjournments sought by the assessee. The assessee argued that the adjournments were due to the distance between Malda (assessee's residence), Jalpaiguri (CIT(A)'s office), and Kolkata (AR's location).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the reasons for adjournment. Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ]

This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 15.09.2015 of CIT(A)-Jalpaiguri, relating to AY 2009-10.

2.

The Assessee is an individual. He derives income from handling and transport business. For A.Y.2009-10 the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.41,51,830/-. The assessment was completed by AO by order dated 29.08.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.45,23,880/-. Subsequently notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.08.2012. Order of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was passed on 27.12.2013 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.49.,03,180/-.

3.

Against the order of AO the assessed filed appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) upheld the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution. The following were the relevant observations of CIT(A) :- “2. The case was first fixed for hearing on 24/02/2015, vide notice issued u/s. 250 of the Act, dated 04/02/2015. The appellant, vide letter dated 23/02/2015 asked for a short Samanta A.Y.2009-10 1

adjournment as his AR from Kolkata would not be able to reach Jalpaiguri on 24/02/2015. Accordingly, hearing was re-fixed on 24/03/2015. The appellant, vide letter dated 17/03/2015, asked for an adjournment again showing the same reason that his AR would not be able to reach Jalpaiguri and attend the hearing. Thereafter, the hearing was re-fixed on 11/08/2015 and on 15/09/2015. The appellant again asked for adjournments on the same ground. It is thus, presumed that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal and has nothing to say in defence of the grounds of appeal taken.

3. The appellant is in the business of truck plying. He claimed depreciation @ 30% even for those heavy vehicles (trucks) owned by him and the same was allowed in the original assessment. In this reassessment order, the AO restricted the said depreciation @ 15% as per law and consequential excess depreciation claimed by the appellant has been disallowed. There is nothing on record to controvert the decision of the AO. The addition of Rs.7,14,348/- is therefore, confirmed.”

4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assesee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

5. I have heard the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the ld. DR . The ld. Counsel for the assessee made the submission that order of CIT(A) being exparte may be set aside and CIT(A) should be directed to hear the appeal afresh after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. In this regard the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee is residing in Malda and the office of CIT(A) was at Jalpaiguri. The Counsel for the assessee was at Kolkata. It is due to this reason that there was no proper effective representation in the proceedings before CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that at every stage application for adjournment was made and there was no negligence in not attending the proceedings before CIT(A).

6. I have considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and I am satisfied that the failure of the assessee to appear before CIT(A) was owing to a reasonable and sufficient cause. I accordingly set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue raised by the assesee before CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits by CIT(A) after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. -Sridhar Samanta A.Y.2009-10 2

7.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →