ASHOK KUMAR CHAURASIA,DARJEELING vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), SILIGURII

PDF · subscribers
ITA 741/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard. The appeal was filed with a delay of 433 days, which was condoned by the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied natural justice by the lower authorities and if the appeal should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

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

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Ashok Kumar Chaurasia, Vs DCIT, NFAC, Delhi/ C/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia & Co, DCIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri 7 C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata PAN No. : AFSPC 7744 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA 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 29.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

2.

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

3.

The appeal of the assessee is barred by 433 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit 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 433 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4.

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.

5.

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 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.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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →