MRS. KABITA DAS (SAHA),KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOKATA - XVII, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1774/KOL/2009Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 November 2015AY 2005-064 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where a delay, attributed to the Chartered Accountant's error, was not condoned. The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 250 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's Chartered Accountant's error in judgment regarding the need for an appeal after the CIT set aside the assessment order under Section 263.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the Chartered Accountant's error in judgment. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of Section 50C in the context of the CIT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XVII dated 11.12.2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 250 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assesese has filed an affidavit of her Chartered Accountant explaining the reasons for delay as under:- ./2009 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Page 2 of 4

1.

“6. That sometime in the month of November, 2008, the assessee received a notice by the CIT, Kolkata-XVII u/s 263 of the Act. Such particulars as were required by the Commissioner were duly submitted by me when appeared before him. Thereafter the CIT, Kolkata-XVII by his order dated 11.12.2008 set aside the aforesaid assessment order dated 31.12.2007. Such order was passed by the CIT, Kolkata-XVII u/s 263 of the Act and that the said order was received by the assessee on 16.12.2008.

7.

That the assessee thereafter handed over to me a copy of the said order u/s 263. On perusing the same I found that the ld. CIT, Kolkata-XVII has set aside the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 31.12.2007 with a direction for framing a de novo reassessment. I having laboured under the impression that there is no further scope of addition to the total income assessed in the reassessment proceedings, I therefore advised the assessee Smt. Kabita Das (Saha) that no further action by way of appeal etc. was called for. Accordingly the assessee Smt. Kabita Das (Saha) did not prefer appeal before the higher authorities.

8.

It appears that the Assessing Officer did refer the matter to the Valuation Officer, Mumbai who asked for some particulars from the assessee. The same were duly furnished. The Assessing Officer thereafter in the month of September, 2009 issued notice U/s.143(2)142 of the Act in connection with the above reassessment proceedings. It appears to me that the matter was very serious and referred to senior colleagues.

9.

My colleagues advised that the direction Issued by the Learned C.I.T. Kolkata-XVII in his order passed U/s.263 were against the law, that there is no provision for assessment of any income of the purchaser of immovable property corresponding to Section 50C of the Act, I was advised that the assessee should have preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking cancellation/modification of the said order passed by the Learned C.I.T., Kolkata-XVII U/s.263 of the Act on 11.12.2008.

10.

That I realized the error of judgment on my part and felt that the assessee should not suffer on this account. Therefore as advised by the senior colleagues, I today advise the assessee to prefer an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata against the said ./2009 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Page 3 of 4

order passed by the C.I.T., Kolkata-XVII on 11.12.2008 with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing such appeal. I state that the delay in filing such appeal by my client Smt. Kabita Das (Saha) is only due to my error of judgment on my part”.

3.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the issue of assessee’s application seeking condonation of the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. It is observed that a similar delay had occurred in the case of Shri Vijay V. Meghani –vs.- DCIT (ITA Nos. 5418 & 5419/MUM/2011) and an affidavit of his Chartered Accountant was filed by the assessee giving the similar reasons for the said delay as given in the present case. The Tribunal, however, did not give any credence to the said affidavit and rejecting the same, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal in limine as barred by limitation. Since the facts and circumstances involved in the case of Shri Vijay V. Meghani are similar to the present case of the assessee, the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the said case vide its order dated 20.08.2014 squarely applies in the present case and this position is not disputed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. We, therefore, respectfully follow the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay V. Meghani (supra) and dismiss this appeal of the assessee in limine holding the same as barred by limitation.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →