What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte due to the assessee's absence and lack of opportunity to present submissions. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay of 1233 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to business discontinuation, lack of staff, and unawareness of the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The ITAT condoned the delay, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that the assessee gained nothing by delaying.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Arun Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Paschim… vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & DR. MANISH BORAD

order

: September 22nd, 2023 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2012-13 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Asansol [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 24.12.2019 arising out of the assessment I.T.A. No.: 696/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Arun Rice Mill (P) Ltd. order framed by the Assessing Officer (in short ld. ‘AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act.

Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 1233 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee stating as follows: “1. That your petitioner filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) dated 19.03.2015for the A.Y.: 2012 - 2013. 2. That the appellant company had discontinued its business operation from the assessment year 2014-15 and proper compliance could not be made from the end of the appellant due to absence / lack of staff. 3. That the appellant was not even aware that an order u/s 250 was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 24/12/2019. 4. That the appellant recently received a notice vide DIN & Letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1053268745(l) dated 29.05.2023 from the office of the TRO and thereafter the assessee came to know that an exparte order had already been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 5. Then the representative of the assessee contacted Ms. Swati Baid, FCA on or around 6 July 2023 for filing an appeal before the ITAT. 6. Then the appeal was accordingly prepared by herby 10.01.2023 and deposited before the Hon’ble Tribunal on 11th July 2023 with a delay of around 1227 days. 7. Thus, there is a reasonable cause for not filing appeal within time and it is humbly prayed that the delay of around 1227 days may please be condoned and the case of your petitioner be heard on merit. In the circumstances, your petitioner prays that the delay in filing of appeal before this Ld. Tribunal may kindly be condoned and the case be heard on merits or such order/orders be passed as this Ld. Tribunal deems fit and proper.” 3. Though ld. D/R opposed the request of condoning the delay, we however, considering the facts narrated in the given application

ARUN RICE MILL (P) LTD.,PASCHIM BURDWAN vs. ACIT,CIR-(1), ASANSOL, PASCHIM BURDWAN

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments