Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was dismissed without sufficient opportunity of being heard. The appeal was filed with a delay of 696 days, which was condoned after the assessee provided plausible reasons. The assessee's AR submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. While restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee due to non-cooperation during appellate proceedings. The order of CIT(A) will stand confirmed if the cost is not paid.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.02.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Shri C.Roy, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shankar Naskar, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 696 days. In this regard, the asessee has filed affidavit stating the sufficient reasons for condoantion of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr.DR also did not raise any serious objection. Accordingly, delay of 696 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue 2 involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee could not make any compliance. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its 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. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta-700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively.
3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 23/07/2025. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 23/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.