SM HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 83 & 84/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 SM Hotels and Resorts Private Limited……..………………….………...Appellant 5th Floor, Anil Plaza, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati Assam-781005 [PAN: AAOCS9966N] vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati…..………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-781005 Appearances by: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 07, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 19, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: These two appeals are filed by the same assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as “the ld. CIT(A)”)] both dated 19.11.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The details of the appeals are as under: - ITA No. 83/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2016-17, arising out of the assessment order dated 31.05.2023, passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act & ITA No. 84/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2016-17, arising out of the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of Act vide order dated 16.11.2024.

ITA Nos.83 & 84/GTY/2026 SM Hotels and Resorts Private Limited Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee and involve interconnected issues, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, first we take up the ITA No. 83/GTY/2026 for the assessment year 2016-17 as a lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a private limited company for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,590/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, which was treated as notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Initially, the reopening was initiated on account of the assessee’s high-value transactions routed through the accounts to other non-individual entities amounting to Rs.14,80,000/- during the year under consideration. However, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the reasons recorded and made additions on issues which were not part of the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,41,36,090/- by making addition of Rs.2,41,32,500/- over and above the returned income of the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, since the appeal was dismissed without properly considering the reasons for the delay. It was further

ITA Nos.83 & 84/GTY/2026 SM Hotels and Resorts Private Limited submitted that certain additional documents are required to be filed in support of the claim of the assessee and those documents are vital for properly adjudicating the issue involved in the present appeal. Therefore, it was prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and the matter may be restored to the file of the authorities below for fresh adjudication. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that since the assessee failed to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we notice that the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. The contention of the Ld. AR is that certain issues require re-examination and additional documents are to be filed for substantiating the claim of the assessee. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) would consume valuable time and require calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the entire issue directly to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all supporting documents and evidence in support of its claim, and the Assessing Officer shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after duly examining the documents furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.83/GTY/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.83 & 84/GTY/2026 SM Hotels and Resorts Private Limited Now, coming to ITA No. 84/GTY/2026, since the quantum matter itself has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings presently do not survive independently. Therefore, the penalty issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and an appropriate order, if necessary, may be passed after completion of the assessment proceedings. In case the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, the consequential penalty proceedings shall also abide by the outcome thereof. Accordingly, ITA No. 84/GTY/2026 is also allowed for statistical purposes. However, before parting, we also observe that the assessee failed to furnish proper documents before the Ld. CIT(A) and did not diligently participate in the appellate proceedings, therefore, in order to ensure proper compliance during the remand proceedings, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the assessee, which shall be deposited with the Income Tax Department, and proof of such payment shall be furnished before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 19th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 19.05.2026. DP, PS

ITA Nos.83 & 84/GTY/2026 SM Hotels and Resorts Private Limited 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