What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable due to lack of proper reasoning and evidence. To provide the assessee another opportunity, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The assessee and revenue filed appeals against an ex parte order of the CIT(A) which granted relief without proper reasons or evidence. The assessee had not cooperated with the authorities below.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in granting relief ex parte without proper justification and evidence, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

ITO vs Dhanvirdhi Financial Consultants… | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Chaitali Shah, CA

For Respondent: Shri Guru Jhashyam, CIT(DR)

Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Dhanvirdhi Financials ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Block No.20-21, Plot No.13, Vs Behind Garden Vareli, Kadodara S.O, Vareli, Surat, Gujarat-394327. (PAN: AADCD0718Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA No.292/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15

ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata Dhanvirdhi Financials Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Vs Block No.20-21, Plot No.13, Behind Garden Vareli, Kadodara S.O, Vareli, Surat, Gujarat-394327. (PAN: AADCD0718Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Chaitali Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Guru Jhashyam, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 19.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.05.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM:

I.T.A. Nos.90 & 292/Kol/2024 2 ITA No.90/Kol/2024 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in appeal No. CIT(A), Kolkata-3/11360/2016-17 and ITA No.292/Kol/2024 is an appeal filed by the revenue against the same order of the ld. CIT(A).

Shri Chaitali Shah, CA represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Guru Jhashyam, CIT(DR) represented on behalf of the revenue.

ITA No.292/Kol/2024 filed by the revenue with a delay of 22 days. The revenue has filed condonation petition. The reasons in the petition is plausible and reasonable. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

The ld. AR appeared online and her submissions were totally incoherent. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that the assessment order is ex parte and also the order of the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte. However, the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without calling for any remand report nor considered any evidences. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer is restored.

We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the orders of the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that before both the authorities below, there has been no cooperation by the assessee. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A)

I.T.A. Nos.90 & 292/Kol/2024 3 shows that the ld. CIT(A) without giving proper reasons nor calling for a remand report has granted relief to the assessee. The order of the ld. CIT(A) being unsustainable, the same stands set aside. However, in the interest of justice so as to grant the assessee one more opportunity to rectify the recalcitrant attitude, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. Should the assessee not cooperate in the set aside proceedings, liberty is granted to the Assessing Officer to draw adverse inference.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 18.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DHANVIRDHI FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GUJARAT

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