KAMALA IRON FOUNDRY ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 47(1), , KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “बी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता

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

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.824/KOL/2025
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018)
Kamala Iron Foundry
14, Gadahar Bhatta Road,
Bhattanagar, Howrah-711204
Vs ITO, Ward-47(1), Kolkata
PAN No. :AAEFK 8990 K

(अपीलार्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, JCIT-Sr.DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
: 09/07/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated
14.11.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless appeal Centre
(NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 80 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
3. Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to 2
the assessee. The assessment order has also been passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 of the Act. Further the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has provided Bank Statements, Audited Books of Accounts,
Ledger Copies and Cash Book to substantiate its claim, however, without considering the same the Assessing Officer made the addition. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld.AO, so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.AO.
4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld.
Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of ld. AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
5. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the issue needs to be re-verified at the level of AO. A perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. A further perusal of the order passed by the ld.
Assessing Officer shows that the assessee was unable to furnish the details as required during the course of assessment proceedings. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction that the Assessing Officer shall verify the documents to be produced by the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee shall 3
be given sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. Assessing Officer in the readjudication proceedings, positively.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2025. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR)
न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 29/07/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,

(