TIRAT PACHWAI SHOP,TIRAT vs. ITO WARD-1(3)/ASANSOL, AAYKAR BHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 167/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 July 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1396 days in filing the appeal, considering the reasons stated in the affidavit as plausible and not false. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-8 for Assessment Year 2013-2014. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1396 days. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, primarily attributing it to the demise of their advocate.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 22/07/2025Pronounced: 22/07/2025

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) TIRAT PACHWAI SHOP Vs ITO, Ward-1(3), Asansol PO : Kalipahari, West Bengal-713339 PAN No. : AADFT 4483 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Amit Agarwal, AR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-8, Mumbai for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.

2.

Shri Amit Agarwal, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld.AR that the assessee the assessment has been framed by the ld. AO without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. In the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) there was a delay of 1396 days in filing the appeal. The assessee in this regard has filed an affidavit in regard to delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which reads as under :-

4.

It was the submission that the delay may kindly be condoned and the assessee may kindly be provided one more opportunity to represent the case before the ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee could be able to submit the required details to substantiate its case.

5.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).

6. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. With regard to delay, the assessee has filed condonation application before the ld. CIT(A) which has been incorporated by the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.2 of the order. However, considering the submission of the assessee and the sufficient reasons stated in the condonation application which are plausible and not found to be false, I condone the delay of 1396 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A further perusal of the assessment order also clearly shows that the assessee could not submit the details during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating afresh on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) positively.

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →