HIFILL TRACON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 351/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 July 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the specific issue regarding the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided an adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate its claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) requested time to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, but this request was denied, and the appeals were heard finally.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was valid and whether the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating this specific issue on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 15/07/2025Pronounced: 15/07/2025

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata-27, dated 06.12.2024 & 12.12.2024 for the Assessment Years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014, respectively.

2.

Shri Manish Tiwari, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Pampa Ray, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is required to be challenged and the assessee needs time to file the additional ground. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the seeking time in this matter is denied and the appeal is heard finally.

4.

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

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case for both the years under consideration clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue regarding issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, 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 both the appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue 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.

6.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2025. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 15/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यापपत प्रयत //// (

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →