Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a company, filed its Income Tax Return showing an income of ₹2,35,710/-, which was later assessed by the AO at ₹88,06,695/- under Section 143(3) after a limited scrutiny. The assessee's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte due to non-prosecution, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 178-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the use of an incorrect email ID in Form No. 35 which led to the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹50,000/- to Legal Aid Services.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; ex-parte dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) due to incorrect email ID; requirement for fresh adjudication by CIT(A) with adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(3A), 143(3B), 143(1), 143(2), 142(1), Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 17-July-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 12.04.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, dated 30.03.2021. The assessee had requested vide application dated 10.04.2025 to correct the A.Y. to 2018-