Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit by 336 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, providing plausible reasons. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 336 days, admitting the appeal. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the AO after the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Kishore Chakraborty, Vs ITO, Ward-3 (1), Malda Horijan Lane, Pirojpur, PS English Bazar, PO & District : Malda, WB PAN No. : AUNPC 9425 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Miraz D. Shah, AR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT-Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 15/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/07/2025 आदेश / 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 26.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Shri Miraj D. Shah, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Pampa Ray, ld. Sr.DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 336 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 336 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee 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. AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the ld. AR has made a request before the Bench that if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. AO by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO 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 as well as in the assessment proceedings, I impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten 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 AO at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned