EKANSH COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 744/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 July 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing. The assessee cited unavailability of tax consultants and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for the delay. The ITAT noted that the assessment order was passed ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity for a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (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 2017-18 dated 29.12.2023. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 405 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the delay was primarily due to the delay in obtaining legal or professional advice due to the unavailability of tax consultants or advocates. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Ekansh Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the condonation of delay without considering the bonafide reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period and that the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence.

3.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant's behavior constituted inaction and negligence, thereby ignoring the judicial pronouncements which allow condonation of delay in genuine cases.

4.

That the appellant had a strong case on merits and denying an opportunity of being heard on technical grounds of limitation has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.

5.

That in view of the principles of natural justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned and the matter adjudicated on its merits.

6.

For that addition made in the impugned order on account of purchases Rs. 97,45,000/- and Interest on IT Refund Rs 10,589/- on account no explanation from assessee. These addition can be deleted once the appellant is provided with the opportunity to present the case.

7.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, or modify any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing."

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee for AY 2018-19 was reopened u/s 148 of the Act based on the information that the assessee had received an accommodation entry of ₹12,00,000/- on 09.03.2018 originating from a shell entity, M/s. Allium Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., which was routed through multiple intermediaries. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') issued multiple statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and subsequent show-cause notices requesting the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, but the assessee remained entirely non-compliant. Consequently, Ekansh Commercial Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. AO passed an ex parte assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act on 03.01.2024, treating the sum of ₹12,00,000/- credited as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that there was a delay in filing the appeal before him and the assessee had failed to furnish sufficient documentary evidence or cause for the said delay. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee's behaviour constituted personified inaction and negligence, therefore, rejected the request for condonation of delay and held the appeal to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, the appeal was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. It was noted by the Bench that the assessment order was framed ex parte with an addition of ₹12 Lakh and the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal. It was also noted that part of the delay was during the COVID-19 pandemic period and proper compliance could not be made for justifying the delay. As per para 3.2 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the assessment order was passed on 27.11.2019 which was served to the assessee on 10.03.2020 and the appeal was filed on 29.05.2022 and part of the delay was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic period.

6.

The Ld. DR had no objection if the issue was remanded to the Ld. AO for framing the assessment de novo.

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).

Ekansh Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Since there was no proper compliance before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal, in the interest of justice and fair play, it was considered that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the assessment proceedings may be restored before the Ld. AO so that a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A), condone the delay in filing the appeal before him and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 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 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st July, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Ekansh Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Ekansh Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 15, Gangadhar Babu Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700012. 2. I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →