AMRITLAXMI DISTRIBUTOR PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 560/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 September 2026AY 2011-20127 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the application for condonation of delay and provide a proper opportunity for hearing, sending notices to the correct email address.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to alleged non-compliance with notices, which the assessee claimed were sent to an incorrect email address. The assessee also argued that the appeal was not delayed and that the CIT(A) failed to provide a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a proper hearing due to notices sent to an incorrect email address and whether the appeal was indeed delayed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2011-12 dated 21.05.2024. Since the issues in both the appeals are related, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 560/KOL/2026:

Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd. "

1.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 21/05/2024 without giving your appellant the chance of being heard and thereby neglecting the principle of natural justice which is not correct.

2.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by giving baseless and wrong findings at para 5.1, "In connection to the appeal, opportunities were provided to the appellant to substantiate his grounds of appeal on or before the following dates: 1) 05/01/2024, 2) 22/01/2024, 3) 16/05/2024. On verification of the ITBA portal, it is observed that all the notices got successfully delivered to email: rockwork2016@gmail.com" - which is not only baseless but just a weapon used by the Ld. CIT(A) to punish his appellant for the reason better known to him. Because, fixation notice sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to mail id does not relate to your appellant. Your appellant's mail id as per Form No. 35 is sushilkumarpurohit@rediffmail.com. But notices were sent to mail id rockwork2016@gmail.com which is not correct. From where Ld. CIT(A) has collected such mail id: rockwork2016@gmail.com can be enlighted by him only.

3.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by giving wrong decision as per para 5 of the order, "In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED". As there was no technical defect in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) dismissal the same by not showing any valid reason is beyond the perview of Law. He can confirm the penalty imposed of Rs.7,73,514/- by the Assessing Officer if the appellant fails to comply the notice u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961. But the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal which is not correct as well as illogical. Because legally there is difference between language 'Dismissed' and 'Confirmed'. An appeal is dismissed when the higher authority rejects it without reviewing the merits, often due to 'technical flaws'. But an appeal is confirmed when the higher authority hears the case and agrees with the lower authority's decision. But in this case, there was no technical flaws. Therefore, decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is improper, high-handled showing the power of his chair.

4.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not considering the appeal on merits but dismissed the same on the ground of non-compliance of notice u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 although the notices were not served in our mail id: sushilkumarpurohit@rediffmail.com but served on mail id: rockwork2016@gmail.com which is not correct but improper and illogical.

5.

For that the observations and contentions of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant on the grounds which are not correct.

6.

For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify and/or alter the grounds at or before hearing." II. ITA No. 561/KOL/2026:

Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd. "

1.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 21/05/2024 wothout giving your appellant the chance of being heard and thereby neglecting the principle of natural justice which is not correct.

2.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by giving baseless and wrong findings at para 5.1, "In connection to the appeal, opportunities were provided to the appellant to substantiate his grounds of appeal on or before the following dates: 1) 05/06/2023, 2) 08/02/2024, 3) 09/05/2024, 4) 16/05/2024. On verification of the ITBA portal, it is observed that all the notices got successfully delivered to email: rockwork2016@gmail.com" - which is not only baseless but just a weapon used by the Ld. CIT(A) to punish his appellant for the reason better known to him. Because, fixation notice sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to mail id does not relate to your appellant. Your appellant's mail id as per Form No. 35 is sushilkumarpurohit@rediffmail.com. But notices were sent to mail id rockwork2016@gmail.com which is not correct. From where Ld. CIT(A) has collected such mail id: rockwork2016@gmail.com can be enlighted by him only.

3.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by dismissing the appeal depending on wrong observations that the appeal has been filed in late and we have not requested for condonation of delay which is not correct. Because the fact is that, although the assessment order was passed on 11/12/2018, copy of assessment order alongwith its enclosures was not served on the assessee. We had requested for certified copy of the assessment order alongwith its enclosures on 14/01/2019 after payment of copying fees of Rs.100/- copy of which is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and record. After waiting for more than two months, when entire set of assessment order alongwith demand notice, challan, etc. was not received, again we requested for entire set of assessment order on 19/03/2019 after payment of another challan of Rs.100/- for copying fees copy of which is also enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and record. After this request letter submitted before the Assessing Officer on 19/03/2019, we received the complete set of assessment order alongwith demand notice, challan, penalty notice, etc. Thereafter, we filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-4 on 26/03/2019. Therefore, there was no delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). But our stenographer has wrongly filled up the column 'Date of Service of Order / Notice of Demand' in Form No. 35 as on 21/12/2018 which may kindly be treated as typographical mistake. Sir, if the above order of the Assessing Officer is received by the appellant on time, then the appellant must not have paid Rs.200/- being copying fees for certified copy of the order. Under the circumstances, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, has not given your appellant the chance of being heard depending on wrong observations.

Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd.

4.

For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by not considering the appeal on merits but dismissed the same on the ground of late filing of appeal without prayer for condonation of delay which is not correct as there was no delay in filing appeal on the part of the appellant.

5.

For that the observations and contentions of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant on the grounds which are not correct.

6.

For that the appellant craves leave to adduce, modify and/or alter the grounds at or before hearing."

3.

We shall first take up ITA No. 561/KOL/2026 for adjudication. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2011-12 on 11.08.2011 declaring the total income at ₹3,280/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee was a beneficiary of ₹25,00,000/- from M/s. Madhav Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., a shell/paper company, during the relevant previous year. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') found that the creditworthiness of the payer was not established and he treated the amount of ₹25,00,000/- as unexplained credit out of the undisclosed income of the assessee. Consequently, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, determining the total income at ₹25,03,280/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that the appeal was filed with a delay of two months and the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for condonation of the delay. He also noted that the assessee did not avail the opportunities provided during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd.

5.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to para 4 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), in which he did not condone the delay of about 2 months as in Form No. 35 no grounds for delay had been submitted. The Ld. AR submitted that the compliance could not be made as the email ID mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not the one which was mentioned in the appeal memo on Form No.

35.

He drew out attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned on page 5 that all the notices were successfully delivered to the email rocwork2016@gmail.com while the email of the assessee mentioned on Form No. 35 was sushilkumarpurohit@rediffmail.com. Since an incorrect email address was used, therefore, the compliance could not be made as the notices were to be sent to the email mentioned in Form No.

35.

The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay and deciding the appeal on merits.

6.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

7.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts of the case and the law, in the interest of justice and fair play we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for disposal of the grounds of the appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to file an application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A), who shall consider the same and decide the issue relating to condonation order dated delay. The notices may be sent on the email mentioned on Form No. 35 as earlier notices were apparently sent to an incorrect email. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd. any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 561/KOL/2026 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

The appeal in ITA No. 560/KOL/2026 relates to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and as we have remanded the issue relating to the quantum addition before the Ld. CIT(A), the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also hereby set aside as regard the appeal order against the penalty and he is directed to dispose of the penalty after the appeal against the quantum addition in the assessment order is decided.

10.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 560 & 561/KOL/2026 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th September, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 04.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Amritlaxmi Distributor Pvt. Ltd.

2.

ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata.

3.

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

6.

Guard File.Deputy

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →