KUSUM AGARWALA,W/O.NIRANJAN AGARWALA,MALDA vs. ITO,WARD-2, MALDA, MALDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1068/KOL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 October 2015AY 2006-073 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was done in the interest of justice and fair play.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period due to illness, which was condoned. The assessment was framed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Assessing Officer and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jalpaiguri in appeal No.291/MLD/CIT(A)/JAL/08-09 dated 04.01.2012. Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-2, Malda u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 02.12.2008 for assessment year 2006-07.

Shri Animesh Kumar Basu, Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Amitava Bhattacharya, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of Department.

Smt. Kusum Agarwala v. ITO Wd-2 MLD Page 2 2. At the outset, Ld AR of assessee drew our attention that the appeal is barred by limitation for 77 days on the ground that due to illness assessee could not file appeal within due date for which she has filed condonation of delay with original M.C. Ld. DR has not raised any if the delay of condonation is considered. Hence, we condone the day and to proceed hearing of the appeal.

3.

At the outset, it was noticed that assessment was framed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Act and same was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Now, before us Ld.AR pleaded that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided by AO and he demonstrated that all the books of account and other documents are ready and which will be available to AO and Ld. AR prays that at least one more opportunity should be granted to assessee and matter should be restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication as per law. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of AO and needless to say that assessee should co-operate as and when require by AO. This appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →