S D ENCOMM LLP,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication. The penalty imposed was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without condoning a significant delay. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not consider all the evidence submitted, violating natural justice.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and whether the AO considered all the evidence submitted by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 08.10.2025 for the AY 2021-22. The penalty was levied u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 27.06.2023 by the ld. AO.
ITA No. 3179/KOL/2025 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before the bench that the assessee has filed all the evidences/details before the AO, however, the same were not considered by the ld. AO which has resulted into violation of principle of natural
2.1. The ld. DR did not object to the prayer of the Counsel.
2.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) in limine without condoning the delay of 425 days. In the interest of justice and fair play, the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CITY(A) is hereby condoned as the same is for bonafide and genuine reasons. We also find that the ld. AO has passed the order without considering the evidences filed by the assessee. Consequently, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication after taking into account all the evidences and submission of the assessee.
2.3. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 3180/KOL/2025 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the penalty imposed by the ld. AO u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Since, we restored the quantum appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 3179/KOL/2025 in above para, therefore, this penalty order has no legs to stand.
3.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the penalty imposed by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) has no legs to stand as quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication. Consequently, we delete the penalty as it has no legs to stand with a liberty to the ld. AO to re-initiate the penalty proceedings in the set aside proceedings in accordance with law , if he deems it fit.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29.06.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 29.06.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//
Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)
- Brajesh Kumar Suman, Munger vs ITO Ward 1(1), BhagalpurITA 433/PAT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Brajesh Kumar Suman, Munger vs ITO, BhagalpurITA 432/PAT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2465/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Vipulbhai Keharbhai Kukadiya, Bhavnagar vs The Income Tax Office, Ward 1(9) Bhavnagar…ITA 2464/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026