RICHA PATHAK,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-23(1), HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 522 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons plausible and reasonable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to a delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the assessee, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to delay without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 07/08/2025Pronounced: 07/08/2025

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-2019 2. Shri Parnesh Sarkar, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Somnath Das Biswas, ld. Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was the submission of the ld.AR that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer of the ld. AR that if one more opportunity is granted the assessee would be able to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A).

4.

In reply, ld. Sr.DR vehemently relied on the orders of the authorities below.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →