MADHUAMIT AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 242/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2026AY 2022-20236 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 459 days, citing the principle of natural justice and the assessee's unawareness of the assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed due to a delay of 459 days, which the CIT(Appeals) did not condone for lack of sufficient cause. The assessee claimed the delay was due to their CA's negligence.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on merits without considering the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

ITA No. 242/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2022-2023) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 242/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited,..…Appellant 18, Dumdum S.O. Kolkata, Kolkata-700028, West Bengal [PAN:AAOCM4864H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-5(4), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Esplanade, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee Ms. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 09, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: June 22, 2026 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.11.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2022-2023.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 459 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The appellant has not

ITA No. 242/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2022-2023) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited supported reason for delay given in Form 35 with documentary evidence. The assessee in Form No. 35 in Col. 15 has stated that he could not file the appeal in time due to negligence of his CA, who was handling the matter of income tax. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that in absence of any substantiation, the grounds for condonation of delay as mentioned by the assessee, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence and the same would not, as such, constitute ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into merits of the case as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant by mentioning that this case is not fit for condonation of delay within the specified time limit before him. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Company filed its return of income on 27.02.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,16,680/-. It is observed from the information gathered by the Income Tax Department that the assessee made transactions with Ish Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd. and received payment of Rs.25,46,34,098/- from Ish Travel & Tours Pvt. Ltd. The assessee also made transactions with Dues Manager Pvt. Ltd. and received payment of Rs.2,45,29,735/-, which aggregated to Rs.27,91,63,833/-. The assessee-Company earned commission/brokerage of Rs.46,06,203/-. Accordingly, the case of

ITA No. 242/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2022-2023) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited the assessee was selected through manual for complete scrutiny. Survey action under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated at the registered office of M/s. Ish Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Dues Manager Pvt. Limited and M/s. Lakshay Forex Pvt. Ltd. (Khurana Group), the entities controlled and managed by Shri Pawan Kumar Khurana. During the course of survey proceedings, unaccounted cash, gold bars (bullion) and unaccounted foreign currency was found. Shri Pawan Kumar Khurana confirmed the fact that the payments made through swiping of credit cards on POS machines of Kolata based entities were received back on the next day through RTGS/NEFT from either M/s. Devicks Trading Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Ragily Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In response to show- cause notice issued vide dated 09.03.2024, the assessee through its submission dated 16.03.2024 stated that the total amount collected from Dues Manager Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.26,20,41,800/- as submitted by the assessee, was treated as business income of the assessee and the same is taxed in the hands of assessee. Thereafter after card swap charges charged by Bank plus GST, the assessee has received Rs.26,01,86,540/- in their account and their commission is 0.1% on Rs.26,20,41,800/- The ld. Assessing Officer determined the total assessed income of the assessee at Rs.45,57,050/-, which included income as per returned filed, computation of income u/s. 143(1)(a) amounting to Rs.1,16,680/-, and variation in respect of issue of commission income earned /received by the assessee company being 1.65% of the total transaction amount collected of Rs.26,20,41,800/-, which comes to Rs.43,22,690/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the

ITA No. 242/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2022-2023) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited appeal of assessee on account of non-furnishing plausible explanation with supporting evidence for the delay in filing appeal within the stipulated period of time before him.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without giving opportunities to the assessee simply saying that the assessee has not provided plausible explanation with supporting documentary evidence for the delay in filing appeal before him. The ld. CIT(Appeals) simply dismissed the appeal of assessee for not filing the appeal before him within the stipulated period of time and without going into the merits of the case. He prayed before the Bench to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

5.

On the other hand, it was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that the assessee failed to offer any explanation/supporting documents in respect of the grounds of appeal raised by him before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee also not filed any documentary evidence in support of delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and for this reason, ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of assessee for not furnishing satisfactory explanation before him within the stipulated period of time. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

6.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows

ITA No. 242/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2022-2023) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited that ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of assessee due to delay in not furnishing the appeal in time before him. I also find that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act assessing the taxable income of assessee at Rs.45,57,050/- as the assessee failed to produce any evidence or supporting documents in support of the claim to substantiate its case. The assessee was not aware of passing the assessment order and due to that, delay occurred. Considering the facts and circumstances, the delay of 459 days in presenting appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) is condoned. I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeal by passing appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/06/2026.

Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 22nd day of June, 2026

ITA No. 242/KOL/2026 (A.Y. 2022-2023) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited Copies to :(1) Madhuamit Automobiles Private Limited, 18, Dumdum S.O. Kolkata, Kolkata-700028, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Esplanade, Kolkata-700069 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →