PRADIP DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. WARD 1(3), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 435/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 July 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 364-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard and to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2017-2018, which was delayed by 364 days. The assessee sought condonation for the delay, citing medical emergencies. It was also noted that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and did not cooperate during the assessment proceedings with the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and non-cooperation by the assessee during assessment and first appeal proceedings, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 08/07/2025Pronounced: 08/07/2025

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 28.12.2023, passed for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mrinmay Basak, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal has been filed on 27.02.2025. The appeal is time barred by 364 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition mentioning that he was unwell and was having certain medical emergencies. As the assessee has filed condonation petition and the reasons provided by the assessee are found to be plausible, therefore, the delay of 364 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4.

As it is noticed that the assessee has not represented before the ld. CIT(A). Even the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. In such circumstances, in the

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →