M/S. LAXMIPATI DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-2(3),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 91/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 November 2025AY 2013-20143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without the assessee receiving hearing notices, which led to the delay. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Laxmipati Dealers Private Limited, filed three appeals before the ITAT challenging ex-parte orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-26, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment years involved are 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2017-18. The assessee contended that no hearing notices were received from the CIT(A), and they only became aware of the ex-parte orders when penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated. The delay in filing the appeals was attributed to this lack of awareness. The assessee requested an opportunity to present their case on merits. The Revenue did not object to a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee should be admitted for adjudication despite a delay, considering the reasons provided for the delay? (Question of fact and procedure) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused by not receiving hearing notices from the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. They claimed the notices might have gone to spam. They submitted an affidavit explaining the circumstances and requested condonation of the delay of 170 days to present their case on merit. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Ld. DR, stated they had no objection if the matter was remanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A 91/Kol/2025 Assessment Year 2013-14 IT(SS)A 92/Kol/2025 Assessment Year 2015-16 & IT(SS)A 93/Kol/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18

M/s Laxmipati Dealers Private Limited, 6/3, Palm Avenue, Ballygunge, S.O. West Bengal - 700019 [PAN: AABCL5250H] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata - 7000107 ................................ Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Robin Maheshwari, ACA Department represented by : P.N. Barnwal, CIT, DR Date of concluding the hearing : 18.11.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 19.11.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of 3 appeals in which there is a delay in filing of the same. The delay has been requested to be condoned as under:

“I, Harshvardhan Singh Rathore S/o Arjun Singh aged about 32 years, residing at Lakhao Churu Rajasthan 331001 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under: 1. That at present, I have been working for M/s Laxmipati Dealers Private Limited

2 IT(SS)A 91-93/Kol/2025 M/s Laxmipati Dealers Pvt. Ltd. in the capacity of director of the company and hence competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That in this respect, it is stated that the Appellate Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.01.2025 relating to A.Y 2013-14 was passed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata -26. In the said Order, it was mentioned that several Hearing Notices u/s 250 of Income tax Act, 1961 was issued vide email to furnish written submissions along with necessary details. 3. That no notice of hearing from CIT(A), Kolkata-26 was received vide email. It may be the case that the most emails automatically go to SPAM, as such same was not received. 4. That thus, unaware of the hearing notices which were issued from the office of CIT(A), appellate order passed us 250 dated 21.01.2025 came to our notice when we received hearing notice dated 20.08.2025 against the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) pf the Income Tax Act, 1961. Then order u/s 250 dated 21.01.2025 was downloaded from the income tax portal on 20.08.2025. Since the order u/s 250 was passed on 21.01.2025 as such the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT could not be filed within time limit prescribed. 5. That on the advice of our tax consultants, we are filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), Kolkata-26 on 21.01.2025, for getting justice although there is the delay of 170 days. 6. That the petitioner shall be duty bound and highly grateful & obliged if the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly be filed. Verification I, Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the above contents are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, all the three appeals are admitted for adjudication after condonation of the said delay. These three appeals are being taken up for adjudication through a single order since they pertain to the same assessee

2.

These three appeals arise from orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-26, [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], all passed on 21.01.2025, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”).

2.1 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee pleaded that all these cases were decided exparte of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee did not receive any of the notices issued by

3 IT(SS)A 91-93/Kol/2025 M/s Laxmipati Dealers Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. CIT(A) and only came to know about such an order when penalty proceedings were initiated by the Ld. AO. It was the submission that the assessee may be given another chance to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee had a good case on merit.

2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that there would be no objection in case the matter was to be remanded.

3.

We have carefully considered the documents before us and have heard the Ld. AR /DR. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of these three cases, it is felt that in the interests of substantive justice, the impugned orders in these three cases deserve to be set aside and remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. While adjudicating these matters during remand proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19.11.2025

Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 19.11.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

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

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →