DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MULTIPLEX VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2488/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. | | 06.12.2024 | 2nd Appeal was filed. |6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection. It noted that the Revenue had not raised any ground challenging the CIT(A)'s finding that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid. As this jurisdictional finding had become final, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross-Objection as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 2488/Kol/2024) was time-barred by 67 days, and the assessee's Cross-Objection (CO No. 32/Kol/2025) was time-barred by 28 days, for which both sought condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT(A) had previously allowed the assessee's appeal on merit, specifically finding that the Section 148 notice issued by the AO was without jurisdiction. The Revenue challenged the substantive additions but did not specifically challenge the CIT(A)'s finding on jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal and cross-objection; validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147/148 for reassessment proceedings when the CIT(A) found it invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH”, KOLKATA

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : A. Kochar, AR Department represented by : Aditya Bikram, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 15.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.07.2025

CO No. 32/Kol/2025 Multiplex Vyapaar Private Limited ORDER

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue’s appeal ( 67 days and the CO No. (32/Kol/2025) is time barred by 28 days. The Department has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay as under:

Dates Events/Reasons 24.07.2024 Order of CIT(A) was received in the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kol 22.09.2024 Due date for filing of 2nd Appeal. 03.10.2024 ASR is submitted to the O/o PCIT-2, Kolkata through proper channel. 16.10.2024 Certificate of filing 2nd appeal was received from the O/o Pr. CIT-2, Kolkata. 02.06.2024 Necessary hardcopies of documents/paper/details required for filing 2nd Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared. 06.12.2024 2nd Appeal was filed.

It is respectfully submitted that the appeal could not be filed on or before due date due to an immense work load relating to assessment, penalties and writ petition filed by the various assessee in the Calcutta High Court against the order U/s 148A(d) and notice U/s148, as well as collecting and arranging the required documents/files for the 2nd appeal. Therefore, it is requested to kindly condone the delay of 75 days in filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata for the sake of substantial justice. Verification I, the undersigned do hereby verify on solemn affirmation in Kolkata that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed.” 1.1 The assessee’s CO is time barred by 28 days for which the delay has been requested for condonation as under:

“I SUBHASH KEDIA, son of Late Shri Kishan Kedia, Director of Multiplex Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., holding PAN: AFXPK9222J and Aadhaar No.205252492506 of 1B, Prem Shanti Kunj, 2 Club Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi-110054, do hereby state and declare as under: - 1. That against the Order of Assessment framed by the A.O. for AY 2015-16, an appeal was submitted by the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A) who disposed of CO No. 32/Kol/2025 Multiplex Vyapaar Private Limited the appeal of the appellant by passing an Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 24.07.2024 by allowing the appeal.

2. That the assessee was intimated by the Treasury vide its letter dated 13.12.2024 that the Income Tax Department has submitted appeal against the Order of the CIT(A) before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 06.12.2024. Hard copy of this letter was received by the assessee on 08.01.2025.

3.

That the assessee had received Intimation dated 13.12.2024 on 08.01.2025. The assessee thereafter considered filing of Form No.36A relating to Cross Objection which was filed on 28.03.2025.

4. That upon receipt of Intimation about filing of the appeal by the Department against the Order of CIT(A), the staff of the assessee looking after the accounts & taxation matter expressed his opinion to file Cross Objection.

5. That after few days when consultation was made with the counsel Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, it came to the knowledge that there was time of 30 days only for submission of Cross Objection. Hence immediately steps were taken to finalize papers for submission of Cross Objection and Form 28.03.2025.

6.

That there has been delay in submission of the Cross Objection which may kindly be condoned in view of the misconception as stated above for which the company shall be highly obliged. The above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” 1.2 Considering the petitions filed for both of the appeals, the delay is hereby condoned and the two appeals are admitted for adjudication.

2.

These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 24.07.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”].

2.1 Right at the outset, the Ld. AR placed on record a letter dated 15.07.2025 as follows:

“Most Respectfully, it is submitted that the aforesaid Cross-Objection against appeal u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been fixed for hearing today. In this connection, under instruction from the appellant, it is submitted that the Legal Ground taken in the Cross-objection has already been allowed by the CIT(A) and hence in view of the above it is prayed that the Cross-objection may kindly be allowed to be withdrawn and for which the appellant shall be highly obliged.”

CO No. 32/Kol/2025 Multiplex Vyapaar Private Limited 2.2 It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on merit as also on the issue of assumption of jurisdiction. At this stage it would be pertinent to extract the finding of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of assumption of jurisdiction as under:

“5.7 In this case, the appellant has filed their detailed objection before the AO claiming that there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax in the form of asset which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amounts to Rs.50,00,000/- or more. When the appellant has raised this issue before the AO, this was not considered in the order passed by the AO u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act dated 30.07.2022. After passing that order, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 22.08.2022. As rightly submitted by the appellant, this notice was issued without jurisdiction. Hence, the appellant succeeds on Ground Nos. 1 & 2.” 2.3 The Revenue’s appeal ( ) has the following grounds:

“1. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,85,44,305/- made on account of disallowance of bogus loss and addition of Rs. 3,70,886/- made on account of commission expenses incurred by the assessee for arranging the fictitious loss.

2. That the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deciding the case in favour of the assessee ignoring the dissatisfaction recorded by the AO in respect of loss claimed by the assessee.

3. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not taking any cognizance.

4. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not considering the surrounding circumstance to find out the real nature of transactions made by the assessee.

5. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in accepting the paper documents without any verification on in the absence of any remand report.

6. The revenue craves to add, modify, delete any of aforesaid grounds of appeal

.”

3. Before us, the Ld. DR took us through the substantive addition and the reasons for the same as mentioned by the Ld. AO. However, on a query from the Bench regarding there not being any ground which calls for any adjudication with respect to the finding against the Revenue given by the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the jurisdiction issue [para 5.7 of the CIT(A) (supra)]. Thereafter, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

3.1 The Ld. AR on the other hand pointed out that the reasons due to CO No. 32/Kol/2025 Multiplex Vyapaar Private Limited which the assessee was not pressing any of the grounds of the CO was because the assessee had got relief at the entry level itself when the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assumption of jurisdiction itself was illegal.

4.

We have carefully considered the records before us and heard the Ld. DR/AR. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a clear-cut finding which culminated in para 5.7 of the impugned order (supra), and through this finding the appeal of the assessee has been allowed by treating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act as invalid in the eyes of law. We also find that the Revenue has not taken any ground whatsoever regarding this action of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it deserves to be held that the issue challenging the assumption of jurisdiction has been accepted by the Revenue and thus we find no reason for any further adjudication on the merits as the decision of Ld CIT(A) has become final on that issue. Accordingly, we do not adjudicate on the other grounds canvassed by the Revenue as the order of Ld. AO has been held to be invalid for which there is no challenge before us.

5.

In result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. The appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed for the reasons given above.

Order pronounced on 17.07.2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →