RABINDRA NATH KUNDU,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1825/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, confirming it due to the assessee's consistent non-cooperation and failure to provide justifiable reasons for delays and non-representation.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed 3 days late without a condonation petition. The assessee had also filed a belated appeal before the CIT(A) by 80 days and failed to respond to notices from both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to file within the prescribed time and lack of cooperation in assessment and appellate proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Hearing: 14/10/2025Pronounced: 14/10/2025

O R D E R

Per George Mathan, JM :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

The appeal of the assessee is barred by 3 days. No condonation petition has been filed by the assessee. Even the assessee has also filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) belatedly by 80 days on the basis of which the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order shows multiple opportunities had been given to the assessee. The assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued. The assessee has not given any explanation as to why he has not represented before the Assessing Officer. Before the ld.CIT(A) the appeal has also been filed well within time. The ld.CIT(A) has issued multiple notices. The assessee has not explained anything as to why the assessee 2 has failed to represent its case before the ld.CIT(A). Even the assessee has not explained about the delay occurred in filing the appeal either before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. There seems to be a trend that when the issues get complicated and there are possibility of taking any legal stands for defending the order, the assessee adopts delay tactics so as to get the time in the reopening could expire and then in the set aside proceedings to recoup such legal issues thereby barring the revenue from defending its stand. In these circumstances, as the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings nor in the appellate proceedings, nor has the assessee been able to provide any justifiable reason for its failure to represent itself before the assessment authorities or the appellate authorities, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the same stands confirmed. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2025. (RAKESH MISHRA) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 14/10/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आदेशधिुसधर/ BY 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT ORDER, विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, 5. ITAT, Kolkata (

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →