M/S. GOPAL DHARA TEA CO. PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 347/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A). The appeal was remitted back to the Addl/JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to pass an order in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an intimation order under Section 143(1) and the subsequent dismissal of its appeal by the Addl/JCIT(A) under Section 250 for alleged non-compliance in filing documents and responding to deficiency notices. The assessee contended that proper opportunity was not provided and the appeal should have been decided on merits, raising issues including disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without providing proper opportunity of hearing, and whether disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed PF/ESI payments and under Section 43B for unpaid liabilities were correctly made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: 24-July-2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-Mysore [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 04.02.2025, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 12.08.2020.

“1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the order u/s 250 when no proper opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee as no alert of hearing notice u/s 250 was received by the assessee either through SMS or registered email. 2. For that there was no deficiency in filing of appeal application in Form-35 where proper attachments have been made namely order u/s 143(1), grounds of appeal

, appeal fees challan details.

3. For that the CIT(A) should have disposed off the appeal by speaking order and on merits even if deciding the appeal ex parte.

4. For that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee by stating wrong assessment year and on non-factual grounds.

5. For that the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Rs. 1,97,227/- u/s 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI when the due date of payment for Rs. 1,97,227/- was mistakenly mentioned by the auditor in the Tax Audit Report as 15.01.2018 instead of 15.01.2019 i.e., the same was paid on 14.01.2019 which was within due date and the rectification certificate of the auditor has been issued.

6. For that even otherwise the disallowance of Rs. 1,97,227/- u/s 36(1) (va) on account of delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI should be set off with brought forward losses of earlier years.

7. For that the AO erred in not setting off with the brought forwarded losses of earlier year while making disallowance of Rs. 14,97,952/- u/s 43B being liability not paid during the year consisting of Professional Tax of Rs. 21,910 and Bonus of Rs. 14,76,042/-when the details of losses where duly mentioned in the TAX Audit Report and in the return of income filed by the assessee.”

3. The assessee had filed the appeal against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. It is mentioned in the appeal order of the Ld. CIT(A) that Gopal Dhara Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. instituted this appeal for AY 2019-20 on 21.11.2024. However, the assessee had not uploaded

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →