SRI SUBRATA BANIK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 1(2), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1034/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 July 2025AY 2011-2012Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1034/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Subrata Banik Vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata (PAN: AECPB 8509 В) Appellant / (अपीलार्थी) Respondent / प्रत्यर्थी Date of Hearing / सुनवाई की तिथि 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उद्घोषणा की तिथि 03.07.2025 For the assessee / निर्धारिती की ओर से Shri S. Jhajharia, AR For the revenue / राजस्व की ओर से Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT Sr. DR ORDER / आद1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be genuine. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case due to the assessee's failure to provide explanations. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was filed with a delay of 265 days, attributed to the assessee not receiving the order on their registered email. The AO assessed the total income after noting discrepancies in inventory valuation. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-response.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is to be condoned, and whether the case should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits when the original appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 26.06.2024 for AY 2011-12.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Subrata Banik 2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 265 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows- Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Subrata Banik On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,92,82,110/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) was issued and assessment was completed on 30.03.2014. A notice u/s 148 was also issued to the assessee after recording his reasons as scrutiny of records reveals that there was a difference in value of some of the items of the inventories, closing stocks between value of closing stock considered in the profit and loss account and the value of inventories hypothetically of State Bank of India commercial branch, Kolkata. The AO, going over the records, assessed the total income of the assessee as under:

4.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was no response from the side of the assessee.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Subrata Banik 5. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal should be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee to place his case.

6.

The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as the assessee has failed to offer any explanation or submission in support of grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. There was no discussion on the merit of the case. Keeping in view the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), considering the submission made by the assessee and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd July, 2025

Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra /राकेश �म�) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 3rd July, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Shri Subrata Banik, C/o, M/s Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700072 2. Respondent – DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- 20, Kolkata 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →