Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : December 12, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of even date 06.06.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. has been preferred by the assessee against the quantum additions confirmed by the CIT(A), whereas, Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act which has been further confirmed by the CIT(A) by the impugned order and ITA I.T.A Nos.737,738&739/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2012-13 ACM Fuels Ltd 739/Kol/2023 is against the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. All the appeals are pertaining to the same assessment year 2012-13.
The sole grievance put by in all the three appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine holding all the appeals as time barred. The ld. CIT(A) in all impugned orders has observed that the first appeals were filed by the assessee in the month of October 2017, whereas, the date of demand notice was dated 29.09.2015. The assessee in all appeals has pleaded that the assessee was never served with the demand notice/copy of impugned orders of the Assessing Officer. That it came to the knowledge of the assessee later on from the website of the Department that the impugned orders were passed by the Assessing Officer and demand was raised and thereafter the assessee applied for certified copies of the impugned orders by the Assessing Officer and immediately filed the appeals before the CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that in the appeal relating to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee, itself, has mentioned the date of service of demand notice as 03.10.2015. The plea of the ld. counsel in this respect is that the said date 03.10.2015 was written inadvertently, whereas, the actual date of the receipt of the copy of the demand notice was 03.10.2017. It has, therefore, been contended by him that all the appeals were filed within time limit before the CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions of the ld. representatives of the parties. Though the assessee has taken categorical stand that he was not served with the copy of the demand notice/copies of the impugned orders of the Assessing Officer, however, the Department has