What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case properly, subject to payment of costs.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance and lack of opportunity. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 54,84,371/- as unexplained investment based on Form 26AS, which was not reflected in the assessee's books.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were passed without granting proper opportunity of hearing, and whether the addition of unexplained investment was justified solely on the basis of Form 26AS information.

Sree Seating Systems LLP… vs I.T.O., Ward - 32(1) | ITAT Kolkata 2026

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

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1518/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2015-16 Sree Seating Systems LLP I.T.O., Ward-32(1), Kolkata (Formerly Sree Seating Systems Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAHCS3040E Appearances: Assessee represented by : Praveen Kayal, Adv. Department represented by : Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 23.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.08.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order 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 2015-16 dated 24.05.2023. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 997 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with a petition for condonation of delay of 1005 days explaining the reasons that the appellate order was not served on the registered email address of the assessee, and it was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal until receiving a telephonic communication from CPC, Bengaluru on 20.04.2026 to pay the outstanding demand, after which the appeal was immediately filed. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

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). We find that the assessment order as well as the appeal order had been

Deputy/Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

SREE SEATING SYSTEMS LLP (FORMERLY SREE SEATING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA

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