MALDA METAL PVT. LTD.,,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

We shall first take up ITA No. 2150/KOL/2026 for AY 2013-14 for adjudication. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring the total income at ₹3,36,960/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.03.2016 at the total income of ₹1,12,76,060/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') received information that the assessee had brought back unaccounted income into regular books Malda Metal Pvt. Ltd. through different shell companies, and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, and the Ld. AO was constrained to proceed ex parte. The Ld. AO noted that an amount of ₹1,30,00,000/- was routed through a paper company namely M/s Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited, and he added the said sum u/s 68 of the Act and the assessment was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at the total income of ₹2,42,76,060/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not condone the delay, and dismissed the appeal for failure to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay. However, on merits the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had failed to comply with the notices before the Ld. AO, and set aside the impugned assessment for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) modified the action of the Ld. AO and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that during the pendency of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on the basis of the information received by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO made the addition of ₹1.30 Crore against which the appeal was filed but since the appeal was delayed by 22 days, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as per para 1.1 extracted as under:

It was submitted that the assessee had requested for condonation of delay as the same had occurred due to the contact not being made with the counsel and later on due to long weekend on account of holidays. Our attention was drawn to page 5 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and it is mentioned in ground no. 3 that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. It is further stated that once the appeal was dismissed on account of delay there was no justification for deciding the appeal on the merits of the case. The Ld. AR also brought to our notice that for the AY 2018- 19, the delay of 13 days was condoned and therefore, for the same for the AY 2013-14, as well the delay ought to have been condoned. As regards the merits of the case, it was submitted that the assessee could not make proper representation before the Ld. AO, who passed the assessment order ex parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and before the ITA No(s). 2150/KOL/2026 & Malda Metal Pvt. Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) also proper representation could not be made. The Ld. AR requested that the assessee had specifically raised the ground no. 3 of the appeal that the Ld. AO had erred in assumption of juri iction u/s 147 of the Act during the pendency of the proceeding u/s 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and remanded the issue before the Ld. AO for framing the assessment de novo without adjudicating this legal ground.

The Ld. DR requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Bench was of the view that since this legal ground had not been adjudicated, this issue needs to be reminded before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, on the reasons mentioned. We, condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing the appeal, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before him for deciding the legal ground, which has not been adjudicated and thereafter pass an order as per law after granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

As regards IT(SS)A No. 78/KOL/2026 for AY 2018-19, the assessment was made u/s 153C/144 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the request for set up of brought forward losses was not allowed and he was not pressing the issue related to the one-time settlement (OTS) with the bank relating to the addition of ₹ 60,67,113/-. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made. The Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the loss of ₹ 29,91,381/- as per paragraph 7.6 of the order as the assessee had failed to furnish any cogent evidence along with documentary support to substantiate the said claim despite adequate opportunities being afforded although the assessee had claimed total available loss of ₹ 94,77,226/- which was more than the addition of ₹60,67,213/- made in A.Y. 2018-19. Since the issue of set off of brought forward losses requires verification from records, therefore, this issue needs to be verified by the Ld. AO. Hence, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard is set aside and the issue is remanded before the Ld. AO for considering the claim of the set off of brought forward losses and to allow the same as per law. Hence, Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 6 of the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Other grounds being general in nature or not pressed before us are not adjudicated/dismissed as “not pressed”.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2150/KOL/2026 & IT(SS)A No. 78/KOL/2026 for AYs 2013-14 & 2018-19 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st September, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.09.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)