RAJAL LEFIN AND COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT condoned the assessee's delay and noted that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. Observing the AO's cryptic order and partial compliance by the assessee, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a 105-day delay which was condoned by the ITAT. The Ld. CIT(A) had previously dismissed the appeal due to a 17-day delay without addressing the merits. The AO had made an addition of ₹1,45,49,620 under Section 143(3) citing the assessee's failure to prove Section 68 ingredients.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the CIT(A) and AO's orders were valid, especially regarding the addition under Section 68 and dismissal in limine.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 05.07.2024 for the AY 2017-18.
At the outset, we observed that there is a delay of 105 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which condonation petition along with affidavit was filed.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for sufficient and bona
Besides, we note that the learned CIT (A) passed the order dismissing the appeal in limineby not condoning the delay of 17 days without deciding the issue on merits. Similarly, the learned AO passed a very cryptic order and noted that the assessee has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of Section 68 of the Act despite granting several opportunities during the assessment proceedings, and thus passed an assessment order by making an addition of ₹1,45,49,620 vide order dated 23-12-2019 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. In our opinion, since the assessee has made partly compliance before the learned AO, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to restore this appeal to the file of the learned AO with a direction to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026