AMIT MEHTA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers

ITA 2476/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 July 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact that there was some communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel. The Ld. AR prayed that they may be given an opportunity to present the facts before either the Ld. CIT(A), or the Ld. AO since even at the level of the Ld. AO the compliance could not be made to the fullest extent possible.3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to present facts. However, it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee for wasting the department's time due to non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order from the CIT(A), claiming a communication gap prevented them from presenting facts before the CIT(A) and fully complying with the AO. The Tribunal noted intermittent compliance even at the AO level.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present their case when ex-parte orders were passed due to their non-compliance at both AO and CIT(A) levels.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH”, KOLKATA

Amit Mehta, 2/10, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700020 [PAN: AHCPM8306L] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Sir William Jones Sarani, Middleton Row, Park Street area, Kolkata - 700071 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Miraj D Shah, AR Department represented by : Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.07.2025 O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 07.10.2024.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AR fairly pointed out that the assessee could not make any presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact that there was some communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel. The Ld. AR prayed that they may be given an opportunity to present the facts before either the Ld. CIT(A), or the Ld. AO since even at the level of the Ld. AO the compliance could not be made to the fullest extent possible.

We have considered the preliminary submissions of the Ld. AR, regarding non-attendance before the Ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the orders of authorities below and have also heard the Ld. DR. It is evident from a reading of the order that the Ld. CIT(A) was forced to pass an exparte order since there was no compliance by the assessee. We also find that even before the Ld. AO there has been intermittent compliance at best. Since considerable time and effort has been expended by the department in passing the impugned order and even the order of Ld. AO, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee for wasting time of the department. This cost has to be paid to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta, 700001, within sixty days of receipt of this order by the assessee. With this direction, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The assessee would do well to present the facts before the Ld. AO on being given the opportunity to do so.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 03.07.2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →