ITO v. Sunita Sharma - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1772 (Kol-Trib) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH RAJPAL YADAV, V.P. & RAJESH KUMAR, A.M. ITO v. Sunita Sharma I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2019 5 April, 2024 Appellant by: None Respondent by: S Dutta, CIT-DR ORDER *Rajesh Kumar, A.M.* This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 28-3-2019 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned Commissioner-Departmental Representative informed the Bench that as desired by the Bench the assessing officer tried to serve the notice of hearing upon the Smt. Sunita Sharma, w/o legal heir of Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma however all the efforts failed to serve the notice on the legal heir of assessee and finally the notice was served by affixture and placed report as sent by ITO, Ward-37(4), Kolkata. The ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata stated in the report that the notice was sent to serve the notice however he returned bank when legal heir was failed to accept the notice. It was also mentioned in the report that inspectors report to ITO was also served the notice on Shri Sunita Sharma situated at 4th Floor, Munipara, Manicktala, Kolkata. It was under lock and key and there is no reasons from deciding despite several knocking and finally the notice was served by affixture on 25-10-2014. The learned Commissioner-Departmental Representative therefore prayed that the case may be proceeded ex-parte on the basis of facts available on record. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1772 (Kol-Trib)

IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH

RAJPAL YADAV, V.P. & RAJESH KUMAR, A.M.

ITO v. Sunita Sharma

I.T.A. No. 1324/Kol/2019

5 April, 2024

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: S Dutta, CIT-DR

ORDER

Rajesh Kumar, A.M.

This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the learned Commissioner (Appeals)) dated 28-3-2019 for the assessment year 2010-11.

2. At the time of hearing, the learned Commissioner-Departmental Representative informed the Bench that as desired by the Bench the assessing officer tried to serve the notice of hearing upon the Smt. Sunita Sharma, w/o legal heir of Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma however all the efforts failed to serve the notice on the legal heir of assessee and finally the notice was served by affixture and placed report as sent by ITO, Ward-37(4), Kolkata. The ITO, Ward-37(1), Kolkata stated in the report that the notice was sent to serve the notice however he returned bank when legal heir was failed to accept the notice. It was also mentioned in the report that inspectors report to ITO was also served the notice on Shri Sunita Sharma situated at 4th Floor, Munipara, Manicktala, Kolkata. It was under lock and key and there is no reasons from deciding despite several knocking and finally the notice was served by affixture on 25-10-2014. The learned Commissioner-Departmental Representative therefore prayed that the case may be proceeded ex-parte on the basis of facts available on record.