M/S. WINDAMERE HOTEL PVT. LTD.,,DARJEELING vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1),, SILIGURI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1417/KOL/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016)
M/s Windamere Hotel Pvt. Ltd
C/o:M/s Salarpuria Jajodia & Co
7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor,
Kolkata-700072
Vs ACIT Cirlce-3(1), Siliguri
PAN No. :AAACW 2667 C

(अपीलधर्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S. Jhajharia & Sujay Sen, Ars
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
: 01/09/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/09/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM :

The assessee has filed the instant appeal against the order dated
27.03.2024, passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram, for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 395 days.
In this regard, the assessee has filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein that the person who was looking after the taxation affairs of the assessee company was not keeping well and was not attending the office regularly and ultimately, he tendered his resignation and left the service and the management of the assessee company was not intimated about the receipt of such notices. When it came to the knowledge of the management, immediately the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal having a delay of 395 days. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the delay was not intentional and, therefore,
2
the same may kindly be condoned and appeal of the assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing.
3. Considering the submissions of the ld.AR and looking to the facts of the case, we condone the delay of 395 days and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
4. Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Accordingly, ld.AR prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to file the relevant documents to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).
5. On the other hand, ld. Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was unable to furnish the relevant documents to substantiate its case before the ld.
CIT(A). Therefore, ld.Sr, DR prayed that orders of the authorities below deserve to be upheld.
6. Upon hearing the submissions of counsel for the respective parties and perusing the facts of the case and submission made by the ld. AR, we find that the ld. CIT(A) in its order at para 4.1.3 the assessee was unable to provide the relevant documentary evidence to prove its case, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has approved the view taken by the ld.AO.
However, during the course of hearing, the ld.AR requested for one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues in this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for readjudication afresh on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also 3
directed to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate its case and cooperate in the readjudication proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), positively.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/09/2025. (RAJESH KUMAR) (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)
लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 04 /09/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(