SUBHLABH DEALCOMM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2721/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2012-20132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interests of justice and fair play, the issue should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee could not furnish evidence during the remand proceedings due to circumstances beyond their control, despite notices being issued. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness and the opportunity to present one's case are paramount, especially when non-compliance is attributed to factors beyond the assessee's control. The operative direction is to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Subhlabh Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 17.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) had passed an ex parte order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 27.03.2015, due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal after calling for a remand report from the AO. During the remand proceedings, the assessee also failed to furnish evidence, citing circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal noted that notices were issued to the assessee, but they could not file the required evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's inability to furnish evidence due to circumstances beyond their control. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they could not furnish evidence during the remand proceedings due to circumstances beyond their control and that in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter should be restored to the AO. The assessee relied on the principle of affording sufficient and reasonable opportunities of being heard. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the revenue was represented by a Senior Departmental Representative.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”], dated 17.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the issue is decided by the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) by passing ex parte order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 27.03.2015, when the assessee failed to respond to various notices issued by the AO. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal after calling remand r

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →