Gautam Sen Gupta, Kolkata v. ACIT, Circle-XVI, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2225/KOL/2014 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 222523514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AKLPS3191B
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 2225/KOL/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Gautam Sen Gupta, Kolkata
Respondent ACIT, Circle-XVI, Kolkata, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 04-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 03-08-2016
Next Hearing Date 03-08-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 15-12-2014
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 2225/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B(SMC) BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2225/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 GAUTAM SENGUPTA ................................... .........................APPELLANT SHYAM TOWERS 347/1 SHYAM NAGAR ROAD DUM DUM PARK KOLKATA-700 055 [PAN: AKLPS 3191 B] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .............. ..............RESPONDENT CIRCLE-XVI KOLKATA 169 A.J.C. BOSE ROAD KOLKATA-700 014 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI I. BANERJEE FCA FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI DINBANDHU NASKAR JCIT D.R. FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 03 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 04 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV KOLKATA DATED 25.09.2014 WHEREBY HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN LIMINE BY TREATING THE SAME AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION O N 01.07.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.20 32 100/-. ALTHOUGH THE SAID RETURN WAS INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE AS SESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY HIM SUBSEQUENTLY BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 23.09.2011. THE SAID NOTICE AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES I SSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 142(1) HOWEVER REMAINED UN- COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX PARTE TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 144/147 OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT SO CO MPLETED VIDE AN ORDER I.T.A. NO. 2225/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 2 OF 3 DATED 20.07.2012 HE MADE TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.2 48 625/- AND RS.28 225/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS.23 08 950/-. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 144/147 AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THERE WAS HOWEVER A DELAY OF 128 DA YS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE SAID APPEAL. IN THIS REGARD AN APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY ON THE GROUND THAT HIS AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE SHRI SHAMIM RAHAMAN WAS NOT WELL DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SHAMIM RAHAMAN WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SU PPORT ALONG WITH A CERTIFICATE FROM DOCTOR. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID MED ICAL CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY ADVISED R EST BY THE DOCTOR. ACCORDING TO HIM THE FILING THE APPEAL WAS NOT SO HEAVY THAT A PERSON ADVISED SOME REST BY THE DOCTOR COULD NOT DO THE SA ME. FOR THIS REASON AS WELL AS SOME OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY HIM THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) REFUED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 128 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE IN FILING HIS APPEAL AND DISMISSED THE SAME IN LIMINE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE DELAY OF 128 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) WAS SOUGHT TO BE CONDONED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HIS AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT WELL DURING THE RELEVANT PER IOD. THIS REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE SAID AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL AS THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HOWEVER DID NOT FIND THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE TO BE A SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER W HICH IN MY OPINION ARE NEITHER COGENT NOR CONVINCING. IT IS WELL SETTL ED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY THE APPELLATE I.T.A. NO. 2225/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 3 OF 3 AUTHORITIES SHOULD CONSTRUE THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE LI BERALLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT NO ASSESSEE IS GOING TO DERIVE ANY BENEFIT BY FILING H IS APPEAL BELATEDLY. IF I APPLY THIS LEGAL POSITION AS WELL AS THE SPIRIT PRO POUNDED IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE I FIND THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING HIS APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). I THEREFORE CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND REMIT THE CAS E TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 04 2 016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA THE 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI GAUTAM SENGUPTA SHYAM TOWERS 347/1 SHYAM NAGAR ROAD DUM DUM PARK KOLKATA-700 055 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-XVI KOLKATA 169 A.J.C. BOSE ROAD KOLKATA-700 014 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XXIV KOL KATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.