Subhkaran Sampatlal (HUF) v. I.T.O., Ward-45(2), Kolkata
[Citation -2016-LL-1019-115]

Citation 2016-LL-1019-115
Appellant Name Subhkaran Sampatlal (HUF)
Respondent Name I.T.O., Ward-45(2), Kolkata
Court ITAT-Kolkata
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/10/2016
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags opportunity of being heard • onus to prove • dismissing the appeal in limine • natural justice
Bot Summary: ORDER Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to A.Y.2007-08, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax -21, Kolkata in Appeal No.1311/ITO, Wd-45(2)/CIT(A)-21/Kol/14-15, dated 25.01.2016, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.12.2009. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken the following grounds of appeal. Although the assessee has taken multiple grounds of appeal, but at the time of hearing, the grievance of the assesse has been confined to only one issue i.e. non appearance by the Authorised Representative on whom the assessee was absolutely relied, the assessee was not aware of the default of the authorized representative i.e the ld. The assessee has submitted before us that the assesee should not be penalized because of gross negligence of the AR and the default committed by the AR of the assessee. Having heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the assessee as the propositions canvassed by the the assessee are supported by the facts narrated by him above. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C KOLKATA [Before Hon ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM ] ITA No.637/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Subhkaran Sampatlal (HUF) -versus- I.T.O., Ward-45(2), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN: AALHS 7096 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Appellant : Miss Komal Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent : S.M.S.Tauheed, JCIT Date of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016. ORDER Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to A.Y.2007-08, is directed against order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-21, Kolkata in Appeal No.1311/ITO, Wd-45(2)/CIT(A)-21/Kol/14-15, dated 25.01.2016, which in turn arises out of order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, Act) dated 16.12.2009. 2. facts of case are as stated in brief. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2007-08 on dated 26.10.2007, declaring total income of Rs.1,11,010/-. nature of assessee s business is trading of Gwar, refined dal. case was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(3) of Act and AO has completed assessment by making various additions on dated 16.12.2009. 3. Aggrieved from order of ld. AO, assessee has filed appeal before ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed action of AO by observing followings :- relevant records show that after filing of instant appeal, appellant has never made any effort to pursue appeal. It is seen that notices, fixing hearing of appeal on different dates, have been issued but as discussed appellant has never 2 ITA No.637/Kol/2016 Subhkaran Sampatlal HUF A..Y.2007-08 appeared. appellant has neither appeared/authorized any representative to appear nor filed any written submission to substantiate claims as made in grounds of appeal. appellant is required to respond to notices, issued on different dates as per record, and explain matter because onus to prove claims, as made in grounds of appeal, is on appellant. instant appeal is pending for long time and it is apparent that appellant is not interested in pursuing appeal. While filing appeal, appellant has claimed that assessing officer has erred but instead of substantiating those claims, appellant has been keeping quiet and not pursuing appeal in any manner. As per practice appeal should be disposed on merits instead of being dismissed in limine but in given facts and circumstances of instant appeal, it is apparent that appellant is not interested in pursuing appeal and therefore instant appeal is dismissed. 4. Not being satisfied with order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us and has taken following grounds of appeal. 1. That on facts and circumstances of case Ld. CIT(Appeals) disposed of appeal for nonappearances but delay was on account of Authorised Representative on whom assessee was absolutely reliant on him, appellant was not aware of default of Representative. 2. That on facts and in circumstances of case affirmation of addition of Rs.96,000/- for alleged insufficient drawing without at all going into merits of disallowance made by AO. 3. That disallowances of various interest totaling RS.4,45,861/- by AO were arbitrary and without any reasonable cause and such disallowances could not be confirmed in absence of duly valid reasons. 4. That principles of natural justice have been violated as disallowances and confirmation thereof are made merely for nonappearance without going into merits and without speaking order. 5. That order is lead in low and disallowances as confirmed are not sustainable in law. 5. Although assessee has taken multiple grounds of appeal, but at time of hearing, grievance of assesse has been confined to only one issue i.e. non appearance by Authorised Representative on whom assessee was absolutely relied, assessee was not aware of default of authorized representative i..e ld. Authorized Represntative (AR) of assessee had not attended hearing during appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A). assessee relied on AR but he never attended office of ld. CIT(A) and therefore this has resulted into grave pain to assesee under consideration. assessee has submitted before us that assesee should not be penalized because of gross negligence of AR and default committed by AR of assessee. 3 ITA No.637/Kol/2016 Subhkaran Sampatlal HUF A..Y.2007-08 assessee fully relied on his AR but he neither submitted any written submission before ld. CIT(A) not he appeared personally before ld. CIT(A) and this has resulted into great loss in hands of assessee, and consequent result was ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order against assessee. assessee submitted before us that opportunity should be given to him to present before ld. CIT(A) and he requested to remit case back to file of ld. CIT(A). 6. On other hand, ld. Departmental Representative for revenue has primarily reiterated stand taken by AO and ld. CIT(A) which we have already noted in our earlier para, and is not being repeated for sake of brevity. 7. Having heard rival submissions, perused materials available on record, we are of view that there is merit in submissions of assessee as propositions canvassed by the assessee are supported by facts narrated by him above. assessee has been cheated by ld. Counsel/ld. AR and therefore assessee has submitted that assessee in instant case has not got natural justice and therefore we are of view that assessee should not suffer because of gross negligence of ld. AR. Therefore we remit case back to file of ld. CIT(A) to decide appeal afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to assessee. 8. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 19.10.2016. Sd/- Sd/- [N.V.Vasudevan] [Dr.Arjun Lal Saini] Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 19.10.2016. R.G.(.P.S.) 4 ITA No.637/Kol/2016 Subhkaran Sampatlal HUF A..Y.2007-08 Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Subhkaran Sampatlal(HUF), 207, M.D.Road, Room No.74, Kolkata- 700007. 2 I.T.O., Wd-45(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-21, Kolkata 4. CIT-15, Kolkata. 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True Copy, By order, Deputy /Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata Benches Subhkaran Sampatlal (HUF) v. I.T.O., Ward-45(2), Kolkata
Report Error