Shambhu Kumar More, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxiii, Kolkata
In the result, the miscellaneous applications as well as appeals of the assessee are allowed
ITA 2244/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2006-2007
Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] M.A. Nos. 50-52/Kol/2018 (A/O I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014) Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A Nos.2242-2244/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2004-05,2005-06&2006-07 Shambhu Kumar More -Vs.- Acit, Cc-Xxiii, Kolkata [Pan : Adlpm 3303 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeh, Am By Virtue Of These Miscellaneous Applications, The Assessee Seeks To Recall The Ex Parte Order Passed By This Tribunal Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee For Non- Prosecution. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Before Us Stating That Notice Of Hearing Was Not Received By The Assessee & Accordingly, Prayed For Recalling Of The Order Passed By The Tribunal. He Has Stated That The Appeals Were Preferred By The Assessee Against Confirmation By Ld. Cit(A) Of Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act By The Ld. Ao, By Issuing Defective Show Cause Notice U/S 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Act, Inasmuch As The Ld. Ao Had Not Mentioned Specific Charge Of Offence Committed By The 2 M.A.Nos.50-52/Kol/2018
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274
…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…
