Jai Prakash Singh, Kolkata vs Assessee
- CitationAppeal No. 24,25,26/CIT(A)-XIV/Kol/09-10 dated 16.01.2013.
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Authority, in deciding whether to condone a delay in filing an appeal, must afford the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard; where the appellate authority has disposed of the question of condonation on the basis of two short listings and without any evidence having been filed in support of the reason for delay, and the record shows such an opportunity was inadequate, the matter is to be remitted in its entirety to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication, including the question whether to condone the delay.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri B. P. Jain, AM]
W.T.A Nos.13 to15/Kol/2013 Assessment Years: 2003-04 to 2005-06 Jai Prakash Singh Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Wd-28(4), Kol (PAN:ALUPS1062M) (Appellant) (Respondent)
Date of hearing: 16.06.2015 Date of pronouncement: 16.06.2015
For the Appellant: N O N E For the Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT
ORDER
Per Bench:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of common order of CWT(A)-XIV, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 24,25,26/CIT(A)-XIV/Kol/09-10 dated 16.01.2013. Assessment was framed by WTO, Ward-28(4), Kolkata u/s. 16(3)/17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005- 06 vide his separate orders all dated 24.10.2008.
2. None is present for and on behalf of assessee and revenue is represented by Smt. Ranu Biswas, JCIT.
3. At the outset, we have noticed from the order of CWT(A) that he was not condoned the delay and for that the assessee has raised the following common ground in all the three years, which reads as under:
"1. Against non-condonation of delay in filing appeal:
For that on the facts of the case and in law, Ld. CWT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal against order of Ld. WTO.:
4. We find that the only delay in filing of appeal before CWT(A) was 4 months and 22 days for the reason that the assessee's representative Shri Ram Sagar Gupta was ill and hence, he could not prepare the appeal. We find from the order of CWT(A) that no evidence was filed before him i.e. medical certificate or any evidence that the assessee's authorized representative was ill. We find from the order of CWT(A) that only the matter decided on fixing the appeal on 02.01.2013 and 15.01.2013 and finally order was passed on 16.01.2013. In our view, this is totally inadequate opportunity to the assessee 2 WTA Nos.13 to 15/K/2013 Jai Prakash Singh AY 2003-04 to 2005-06
and hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue in entirety to the file of CWT(A) for adjudicating the same afresh. The CWT(A) will also consider the issue of admissibility of appeal i.e. whether condone the delay or not. In term of the above, these three appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. Order is pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/- (B. P. Jain) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 16th June, 2015
Jd.(Sr.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. APPELLANT - Shri Jai Prakash Singh, 27, Tollygunge Circular Road, Kolkata-700 053 2 Respondent - WTO, Ward-28(4), Kolkata.
3. The CT(A), Kolkata
4. CWT, Kolkata.
5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata
/True Copy, By order,
Asstt. Registrar.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free