Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18, which was delayed by 464 days. The Tribunal condoned the delay as sufficient reasons were provided and the Sr. DR raised no objection. The assessee's AR contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting adequate opportunity of being heard.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to substantiate claims and produce evidence before lower authorities. In the interest of justice, it granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO), restoring the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings, with the condition that non-payment would lead to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of significant delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the assessee was denied adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and providing a fresh opportunity to substantiate claims before the AO.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
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 11.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.
Shri Anil Dugal, 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 464 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. Sr.DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 464 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 Sr. 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 even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty 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