MALAY DEY ,ALIPURDUAR vs. A.O., WARD 2(3), , ALIPURDUAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1055/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 October 2025AY 2019-2020Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, since the assessee could not provide any explanation for the suppressed turnover, admitted as erroneous, and failed to show justification for the delay despite multiple hearings, the appeal was dismissed on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre for AY 2019-20. The assessee's appeal was delayed by 19 days. The assessment was ex-parte and no representation was made before the CIT(A). The assessee was asked to explain a suppressed turnover of ₹54,54,297/-, which was admitted as erroneously not included.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee could be dismissed on merits despite condonation of delay, given the admission of suppressed turnover and lack of justification provided by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Mukherjee, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Hearing: 29.10.2025Pronounced: 29.10.2025

O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073766567(1) dated 27.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

Shri Rajeev Mukherjee represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sallong Yaden represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

The ld. AR submitted that the appeal of the assessee is delayed by 19 days. The assessee has filed the necessary affidavit for condonation of delay. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee sought adjournment

4.

It was informed to the ld. AR that the assessment itself is ex-parte assessment and even before the ld. CIT (A) no representation has been made. Consequently, obviously no details can now be produced before the Tribunal. As the assessee has given sufficient cause for delay, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the appeal is disposed off on merits.

5.

A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that there is a verification report of the DDIT (Inv), Jalpaiguri and the assessee had been asked to explain the suppress the turnover of ₹54,54,297/-. The return has also not been filed by the assessee. Perusal of the assessment order also clearly shows that the assessee has admitted that the amount of ₹54,54,297/- has been erroneously not included in the turnover. As the assessee has not been able to give any explanation in regard to such suppress of the turnover before the ld. AO nor before the ld. CIT (A) and nothing has been provided before this Tribunal and also considering the fact that this appeal has been filed by the assessee and it has been posted for hearing on more than six occasions and the assessee has not been able to show any justification. The appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →