Msd Nurnahar Begam v. Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-14, Kolkata

ITAT/384/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE MSD NURNAHAR BEGAM -Versus- PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-14, KOLKATA Appearance:Mr. Apurba Kumar Ghosh, Adv.Mr. Rudranil Ghosh, Adv.Ms. Annyasha Chakraborty, Adv....for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 2[nd ]August, 2022. The Court : This appeal of assessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, is directed against the order dated 13[th] June,2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench,Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA No.2219/Kol/2013 for the assessmentyear 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: i)“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe learned Appellate Tribunal was justified in law bypassing the order without considering the grounds of Appeal which have been taken by the Appellate in theappeal before the Tribunal ?ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the casethe learned Appellate Tribunal was justified in lawwithout pursuing and without assigning any reasons of non-consideration of grounds as mentioned in the Appeal beforethe Appellate Tribunal, have passed the order whichsuffers from irregularity and hence improper in the eye oflaw ?” We have heard Mr. Apurba Kumar Ghosh, learned Advocatefor the assessee. Though the respondent/department has beenserved, since no counsel had been engaged, we request Mr. OmNarayan Rai along with Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned Advocates toaccept notice on behalf of the respondent and the Ministry of Law& Justice is directed to regularize their appearance. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed by thetribunal dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. On goingthrough the order, we find that the learned tribunal has notedseveral decision of various High Courts as well as the Hon’bleSupreme Court for the proposition that a person who files anappeal must diligently and effectively pursue the same. Therecould be no quarrel on such proposition and the tribunal was rightin taking note of the said decision. However, considering thefact that the assessee is an individual and also the fact thatthis Court had directed a sum of Rs.7500/- to be deposited ascosts to the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), which has been complied with by the assessee, we are of the view that one moreopportunity can be granted to the assessee. Only for such reason,we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal (ITAT/384/2016) isallowed and the order passed by the tribunal is set aside and theappeal in ITA No.2219/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 isrestored to the file of the learned tribunal to be heard anddecided on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to theappellant as well as the department. Consequently, thesubstantial questions of law raised are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/As.