What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO, restoring the issues for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without providing a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee sought to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication to present evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a sufficient opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

M/S. Rangolee Share House Pvt… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

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

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/s Rangolee Share House Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO-12(1), Kolkata C-27/273C-13, 1st Floor, Das Nagar, Maldahia, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh PAN No. : AACCR 6658 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Manoj Kataruka, 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 29.07.2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.

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

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).

6. 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 submit its reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO. 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twentyfive 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 costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the AO positively.

M/S. RANGOLEE SHARE HOUSE PVT. LTD., ,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD 12(1), , KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments