GLORIOUS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), KOLKATA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2124/KOL/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014)
Glorious Holdings Private Ltd,
C/o Agarwal Vishwanath &
Associates, 133/1/1A,
S.N.Bannerjee Road, Pushkal
Bhawan, 3rd Floor,
Kolkata-700013
Vs ITO Ward-2(1), Kolkata
PAN No. :AACCG 4244 K
(अपीलधर्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)
निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Deep Agarwal, Advocate
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms Dipu Koley, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
: 20/11/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement
: 20/11/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.
CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.01.2025
for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. Shri Deep Agarwal, ld.AR represented on behalf of the assessee.
Ms. Dipu Koley, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
3. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 171 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed affidavit as follows :-
2
3
4
5
4. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the delay was on account of non- service of the order on the assessee. It was the further submission that on merits also the assessee has a strong case, insofar as the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been served on the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the Assessing Officer itself is liable to be quashed. The ld.AR relied on various case laws which are as follows :-
1. PCIT-2, Kolkata, Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Private
Limited, ITAT/182/2022 IA No. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022, dated
05.12.2022
DCIT Vs. M/s Sudarshan Paper & Board Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 130/Kol/2018 and CO No. 32/Kol/2018, dated 23.10.2019
PCIT Vs Raghvendra Mohta, ITAT/51/2015, IA No. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025, dated 05.05.2025
Raghvendra Mohta Vs. ACIT, Circle 36, Kolkata, ITA No. 2416/Kol/2017, dated 08.04.2024 and 5. Commissioner of Income Tax International taxation-1, New Riteshh Agarwal Vs. ITO, passed in ITA No.826/Kol/2025, dated 27.10.2025
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the delay of 171 days should not be condoned. It was the submission that there is no sufficient cause and the reasons for the condonation of delay are not there. It was the submission that the assessment order is an ex-parte. The appellate order is also an ex-parte order. It was the submission that the assessee is habitual defaulter and there is sufficient cause shown for the condonation of delay and the reasons given are not true. It was the submissions that assessee has not been diligent in its tax affairs and, therefore, the delay is not liable to be condoned. 6 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly as mentioned by the ld.Sr. DR the delay of 171 days has not properly been explained by the assessee. True, it could be that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been issued, but then that does not mean that a lethargic act by an assessee can be condoned. The assessee, admittedly, has not been able to give sufficient reason for condonation of delay. The assessee is also admittedly has shown as habitual defaulter and not been diligent in its tax affairs. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is not liable to be condoned and consequently the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on account of delay not being condoned. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2025. (SANJAY AWASTHI) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 20/11/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,
(