M/S Mirabelle Tradecom Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4/2, Kolkata And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/4/2024IA NO: GA/1/2024 M/S MIRABELLE TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITEDVSINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4/2, KOLKATA AND ANR. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 19[th] January, 2024. Appearance : Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.…for appellant.Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for respondents. The Court :- This appeal by the assessee filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 7.8.2023passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘A” Bench Kolkata (the Tribunal) inITA No. 322/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee hasraised the following substantial question of law for consideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erredin dismissing the appeal ex-parte where the petitioner was preventedby ‘sufficient cause’ and whether the order dated 7[th] August, 2023 isagainst the principles of natural justice ?We have heard learned Counsel on either sides. The learned Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Inparagraph 2 of the impugned order the learned Tribunal has set out the mannerin which the notice was sent to the assessee and that the assessee did notappear in spite of telephonically informed by the registry of the Tribunal. We find 2 that the first notice which was sent to the assessee had been served. However,on the date fixed by the learned Tribunal the assessee did not appear and thelearned Tribunal has recorded that the registry has telephonically informed theassessee. However, the learned Tribunal notes that the second notice which wassent by registered post was received back and could not be served for want ofcorrect address. It is the submission of the learned Tribunal for the appellantthat it is beyond comprehension as to how the second notice could havereturned un-served for want of correct address when the first notice to the sameaddress has been served. Be that as it may, since a large sums of money has been added to theincome of the assessee, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity canbe granted to the assessee to contest the matter on merits. Only for such reasonthis court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunalmaking it clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter. For the above reason, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passedby the learned Tribunal is set aside and the appeal stands remanded to thelearned Tribunal for fresh consideration and a decision on merits.Consequently, the substantial question of law is kept open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)