Sri Prantik Ghosh, Kolkata v. ITO, WD-2, MALDA, Malda

ITA 960/KOL/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 96023514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AHRPG7743E
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 960/KOL/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Sri Prantik Ghosh, Kolkata
Respondent ITO, WD-2, MALDA, Malda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 06-05-2016
Judgment Text
ITA NO.960/KOL/16 SRI PRANTIK GHOSH 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DBENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 960/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2008-09 SRI PRANTICK GHOSH VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER PAN:AHRPG7743E WARD-2 MALD A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY : SHRI V.N PUROHIT FCA LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI UDAY SARDAR ADDL.CIT SR. D.R FOR THE REV ENUE DATE OF HEARING : 28-09-20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-09-20 16 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI JM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) XXIV JALPAIGURI DATED 20-06-2014 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DEALING IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING H ARDWARE GOODS AND HAT FARIA BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-03-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 19 980/ -. ITA NO.960/KOL/16 SRI PRANTIK GHOSH 2 UNDER SCRUTINY THE NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) O F THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT OF ALLAHABAD B ANK AND SBI BANK ALONG WITH THE DEBIT VOUCHERS. ACCORDING T O THE AO INSPITE OF HAVING GIVEN MANY OPPORTUNITIES BY HIM THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE FULL DETAILS AND REM AINED ABSENT BEFORE HIM. ON SUCH OCCASION THE AO COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 144 OF THE ACT ON 22-12 -2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21 03 154/- AND MADE TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.19 35 174/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED MONEY U/S. 69A AND RS.48 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEA LED INCOME U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. 3. AS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 O F THE ACT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T-A. BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AN D ALSO REMAINED ABSENT ON THE DATE OF HEARINGS FIXED BY TH E CIT- A. HOWEVER THE CIT-A CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT-A NOW THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND CONTENDED THAT THE CIT-A HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. THE CIT-A HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDE RING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER MATERIAL FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERI T. HE ITA NO.960/KOL/16 SRI PRANTIK GHOSH 3 FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE CIT-A HAS ALSO SOUGHT REMA ND REPORT FROM THE AO WHEREIN THE AO DID NOT ISSUE AN Y NOTICE FOR REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSEE. BASI NG ON SUCH REMAND REPORT THE CIT-A PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AN D OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. 5. IN REPLY THE LD.DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE R EVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE CIT-A HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. INSPITE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND TO DEFEND HIS CASE. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO DURING RE MAND PROCEEDINGS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE RELI ED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE AO ASKED THE A SSESSEE TO PRODUCE OTHER DETAILS OTHER THAN BANK STATEMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FOR NON PRODUCTION OF THE S AME AND FOR NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE AO HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. WE FURT HER FIND THAT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE C IT-A THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND REMAINED ABSENT BEFORE HIM. WE ALSO FIND THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE OFFERED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE ITA NO.960/KOL/16 SRI PRANTIK GHOSH 4 TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE BY FILING REQUISITE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. T HE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THE CIT- A CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS BAD UNDER LAW. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER ON HAND REQUIRES AFRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE CIT-A. THEREFORE IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT -A ON THE ISSUE(S) INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND REMAND THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND TO PASS AN O RDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE IS A LSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES IF ANY IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE CIT-A. THE ASSESSEE S HALL CO- OPERATE IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT SEEKING ANY FUR THER ADJOURNMENTS. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/09/2016 SD/- SD/- DR. A.L. SAINI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 30/09/2016 ITA NO.960/KOL/16 SRI PRANTIK GHOSH 5 1 . THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE : SRI PRANTIK GHOSH C/O V.N PUROHIT & CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS DIAMOND CHAMBERS UNIT-II I 4 TH FLOOR SUIT NO.40 4 CHOWRINGHEE LANE KOLKATA-16. 2 THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT - INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 MALDA NETAJI MARKET COMPLEX 1 ST FLOOR RATH BARI P.O & DIST MALDA 732101. 3 4. / THE CIT(A) THE CIT 5 . DR KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT REGISTRAR ** PRADIP SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: