STARPOINT VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) WARD-1(1), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 340/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 August 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)9 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period. The delay was attributed to the non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order via email and the death of the assessee's then Chartered Accountant who was handling the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without a proper hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: 26-August-2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 31.05.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.11.2017. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 565 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under:

8.

It has also been held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2016] 69

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →