RAJAL LEFIN AND COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 87/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 04.09.2025Pronounced: 15.09.2025

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.

2.

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.

3.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for sufficient and bona

4.

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.

5.

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

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →