Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad
order : November 20, 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 dated 21.02.2023 & 03.02.2023 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’). ITA 318/Kol/2023 is relating to the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act, whereas, 271B of the Act. Since, both the appeals are pertaining to the same assessee, hence, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Earlier, these appeals of the assessee were decided vide order dated 4th July 2023. However, the assessee thereafter filed a M.A No.49/Kol/2023 stating therein that the issue involved in these appeals Assessment year: 2015-16 Sukumar Chowdhury had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal, rather, that the facts/issues discussed related to appeal of some other assessee. In view of the this, the M.A of the assessee was allowed vide order dated 08.08.2023 and the order dated 4th July 2023 was recalled and the appeals of the assessee were directed to be restored at their original number.
Vide ITA No.318/Kol/2023, the assessee has contested the confirmation of addition made by the CIT(A) of Rs.22,76,48/- on account of enhancement of the gross turnover, whereas, in 271B of the Act.
It has been brought on record that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.318/Kol/2023 being barred by limitation. The assessee had duly filed an affidavit, wherein, it has been deposed that the assessee could not file the appeal in time before the CIT(A) due to his illness. It has also been brought on record that the levy of penaly u/s 271B is the outcome of the order of the CIT(A) in quantum appeal bearing ITA No.318/Kol/2023.
In view of above and considering the affidavit of the assessee along with the medical certificate, we find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to incapacity of the assessee due to illness. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Both the appeals are restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will decide the appeals of the assessee on merits. The delay in filing the appeal, if any, before the CIT(A) stands condoned.