RAJENDRA TOSAWAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

ITSSA 8/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 March 2025AY 2013-148 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.

What were the facts?

These 18 appeals by three assessees, Rajendra Tosawad, Neelam Tosawad, and Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., are against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years ranging from 2010-11 to 2017-18. The appeals stem from a search and seizure action conducted on the Syndicate Jewellers Group on January 18, 2017. The assessees are challenging the orders passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. One appeal (IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024) had a delay of 115 days, which was condoned due to financial hardship following the search. The Tribunal noted that in many cases, there was a lack of representation before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), with some assessees claiming inadequate opportunities. A remand report was called for in one case but the assessee did not respond.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals should be decided on merits given the lack of representation and compliance before the lower authorities, and the absence of fresh evidence before the Tribunal? Assessee's contentions: The judgment notes that adjournment petitions were filed by the assessee but rejected. The assessee had sought consolidation of all appeals and their hearing on the same day. There is no specific argument recorded for the assessee regarding the merits of the case or the issues decided by the lower authorities, as none appeared. The assessee had previously claimed before the Ld. CIT(A) that adequate opportunities were not provided. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the learned DR, submitted that no fresh evidence could be produced before the Tribunal, and therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were liable to be upheld. The Revenue also pointed out the lack of representation and compliance before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT, DR

Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 158 /Kol/2025

ITA No. 175 /Kol/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 6 to 11/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 & ITA No. 158 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & ITA No. 175 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Rajendra Tosawad DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle- No. 311, 3rd Floor, Parekh 1(1), Kolkata. Vs Market, Kenedy Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai, Maharastra. (PAN: AAMPT9014B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

& IT(SS)A No. 146/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelam Tosawad DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), 48-14-28, Akhila Aracade, Kolkata. Asilmetta Junction, Vs Visakhapatnam-530016, Andhra Pradesh (PAN: ABJPT5665J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2017-18 &

2 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 ITA Nos. 159 & 160 /Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-11 &

Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), 22, Block-A, 1st Floor, 22, Kolkata. Vs Camac Street, Kolkata- 700016. (PAN: AAGCS6917B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e (Adjournment petition rejected) Respondent by : Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : All these 18 captioned appeals have been filed by three different assessees against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide orders dated 12.11.2024 (for IT(SS) Nos. 6 to 11/Kol/2025, dated 26.06.2024, for IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, AYs. 2011-12 to 2016-17), dated 13.11.2024 (for IT(SS)A No.158/Kol/2025, AY 2017-18), dated 30.09.2024 (for IT(SS) A No.159/Kol/2025, AY 2010-11), dated 24.10.2024 (for IT(SS) No. 160/Kol/2025, AY 2010-11), dated 12.11.2024 (for IT(SS) No. 175/Kol/2025 for AY 2010-11), dated 24.10.2024 (for IT(SS)A No. 147 to 153/Kol/2024, for AYs.2011-12 to 2017-18 dated 24.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 1.1. It is seen that in IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, there is a delay of 115 days which has been requested to be condoned on the ground that the search action led to extreme financial hardships, due to which a suitable counsel could not be engaged. Thus, finally appropriate action could not be taken. The reasons for delay are plausible and thus, the delay is condoned.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri P.N. Barnwal, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

2.1. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, undated adjournment letters have been filed, wherein it is mentioned as follows:

4 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 Adjournment applications have been rejected. This is because on 18.03.2025 the assessee had filed a letter for consolidation of all the appeals together and for fixing the appeals together on 20.03.2025. The application for consolidation reads as under:

5 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024

At the request of the assessee all the appeals have been consolidated and posted for hearing today. Now, the assessee has sought time.

It was submitted by the Ld. DR that this was a group of cases which were subject to a search on 18.01.2017. Additional income has been

6 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 offered in the course of search and assessments had been completed thereon

3.1. A perusal of the case records, with the help of Ld. DR, has revealed that all these 18 cases pertain to a single group and all these appeals have their roots in a search and seizure action on the Syndicate Jewellers Group of cases. Thus, admittedly, all these 18 cases are interconnected in some way or another.

3.2. It is also seen that in some of the cases there has been sketchy presentation of facts and for this reason, in some of the cases, the assessees have pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that adequate opportunities were not provided to them. This has led to a Remand Report being called for in one case pertaining to Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. case [IT(SS)A No. 147/Kol/2024 for AY 2011-12]. However, it is seen that on being confronted with the said remand report, the assessee concerned has not responded before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also noticed that in cases belonging to Rajendra Tosawad there has been absolutely no representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Similarly, in the one case of Neelam Tosawad also there has been no representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, it deserves to be held that barring the case of M/s. Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2011- 12, there has been no worthwhile compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

It was the submission by the Ld. DR that admittedly, no fresh evidence could be produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, the orders of the lower authorities are liable to be upheld.

We have considered the submission of the Ld. CIT, DR and also gone through the records. A perusal of the facts of the group of cases shows that in some of the cases there have been attempts at filing evidence before the

7 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 Ld. CIT(A) but in most of the cases there is no response to the various notices sent for hearing. Even before the ld. Assessing Officer, the representation has been sketchy. Though, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT, DR that fresh evidence should not be entertained by the Tribunal, however, considering the fact that natural justice is a predominant factor when adjudicating an appeal and in the interest of natural justice we deem it fit to give adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its cases. Thus, the issues in all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after setting aside all the impugned orders subject to a levy of cost in the following manner:

Sl. No. Amount of cost IT(SS)A. No. 1. Rs. 1,00,000/- 6/Kol/2025 2. Rs.50,000/- 7/Kol/2025 3. Rs.50,000/- 8/Kol/2025 4. Rs.1,00,000/- 9/Kol/2025 5. Rs.50,000/- 10/Kol/2025 6. Rs.50,000/- 11/Kol/2025 7. Rs.1,00,000/- 158/Kol/2025 8. Rs.1,00,000/- 159/Kol/2025 9. Rs. 1,00,000/- 160/Kol/2025 10. Rs.1,00,000/- 175/Kol/2025 11. Rs.1,00,000/- 146/Kol/2024 12. Rs.1,00,000/- 147/Kol/2025 13. Rs.1,00,000/- 148/Kol/2025 14. Rs.1,00,000/- 149/Kol/2025 15. Rs.1,00,000/- 150/Kol/2025 16. Rs.1,00,000/- 151/Kol/2025 17. Rs.1,00,000/- 152/Kol/2025 18. Rs.1,00,000/- 153/Kol/2025

This being so, the issues in all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh subject to the assessee paying a cost as mentioned above to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd floor of the

8 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, ITA No. 158/Kol/2025, ITA No. 159 & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta, 700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction given above.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Sanjay Awasthi) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 20th March, 2025 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Shri Rajendra Tosawad, Sm. Neelam Tosawad & Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Respondent. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A), Kolkata-20. 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →