GIRISH KISHANLAL SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 34(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1405/KOL/2025Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 September 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the lack of sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A), the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, who must cooperate.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2016-17 with a delay of 210 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance, without granting sufficient opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT
Hearing: 01.09.2025Pronounced: 01.09.2025

ORDER Per George Mathan: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata- 10/10312/2018-19 dated 05.09.2024 for assessment year 2016-17.

2.

None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR- JCIT represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 210 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. The reasons in the affidavit are plausible and valid. Consequently, the delay in filing

4.

We notice that notice through RPAD had been issued to the assessee but the assessee has chosen not to appear. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue is being disposed off ex parte the assessee.

5.

A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee could not make any compliance before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, we grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the ld. CIT(A) by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall produce all the supporting documents to substantiate his claim and shall cooperate in the re-adjudication proceedings positively.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 1st September, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →