Seikh Babu Mani, Kolkata vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A No.623/Kol/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal condones a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal on the strength of a supporting affidavit and medical certificate showing the assessee was under treatment during the period. Where the first appellate authority's order is non-speaking and cryptic, and the Departmental Representative concedes that a speaking order on the merits ought to have been passed, the matter is restored to the first appellate authority to decide the issues on merits by a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
I.T.A No.623/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Seikh Babu Mani Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-49(2), Kol (PAN:AEZPM5576Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)
Date of hearing: 20.05.2015 Date of pronouncement: 22.05.2015
For the Appellant: Shri Mihir Bandyopadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri K.L. Kanak, JCIT, Sr.DR
ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 221/CIT(A)-XXXII/10-11/49(2)/Kol dated 28.06.2011. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-49(2), Kolkata u/s of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2008-09 vide his order 31.12.2010.
2. This appeal by assessee is time barred by 96 days and assessee has filed Condonation petition supported by affidavit. The assessee has also filed medical certificate that he was advised medical rest during the period. The order of CIT(A) was served on the assessee on 14.10.2011 and appeal was filed before Tribunal on 18.04.2012 i.e. delayed by 96 days. The due date of filing of appeal was on 03.12.2011 whereas the same was filed on 18.04.2012. As per this medical certificate, the assessee was under treatment from 20.05.2011 to 14.03.2012. In view of the reasons stated in the petition and affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
3. After going into the merits of the case, we find that the CIT(A)'s order is a non-speaking and also cryptic one . When it was pointed out to ld. Sr. DR he fairly conceded that the CIT(A) ought to have passed a speaking order after adjudicating 2 ITA No.623/K/2012 Seikh Babu Mani AY 2008-09
the issue on merits. Hence, in entirety the matter can be restored back to his file for passing a speaking order. To this proposition, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not objected and he fairly conceded that the issue can be remitted to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by passing a speaking order.
4. In term of the above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file so that he can allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues on merits by passing a speaking order. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
6. Order is pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. K. Bansal) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated : 22nd May, 2015
Jd.(Sr.P.S.)
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. APPELLANT - Seikh Babu Mani, Mandal Ganthi, Mistripara, Airport, Kolkata-700 057 2 Respondent - ITO, Ward-49(2), Kolkata
3. The CIT(A), Kolkata
4. CIT, 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