ROSNERA BEGUM,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CIR-46, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1128/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 February 2016AY 2008-20092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The order of the CIT(A) was quashed for being non-speaking and lacking in reasoning.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 84 days due to the assessee being an illiterate lady unaware of the proceedings. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte and cryptic order without discussing merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when it was ex parte, cryptic, and non-speaking. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM]

Hearing: 03.02.2016Pronounced: 03.02.2016

For the Appellant: N o n e For the Respondent: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT ORDER

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-14, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 401/CIT(A)-14/Circle-46/2010-11 dated 12.03.2015. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle- 46, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order dated 20.12.2010.

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal by assessee is delayed by 84 days and assessee has filed condonation petition stating that the assessee being an illiterate Muslim lady residing in a village of Bihar, she could not contact her Advocate with the documents and papers because she was not aware about her proceedings going on. Even the receipt of appellate order was not by her or the appellate order was not served on her. In term of the above, Ld. Sr. DR also fairly conceded that the delay can be condoned and accordingly, the delay of 84 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

3.

At the time of hearing, I have gone through the orders of CIT(A) and seen that the order passed by CIT(A) is ex parte. I also find that the order of CIT(A) is cryptic one and non- speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in the order by CIT(A). The duty of the CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order after controverting all the facts given by assessee and decide the issue with reasons. Since this was absent in his order, I quash the same and remit the appeal

4.

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →