GAFFAR ALI MOLLA,SANDESHKHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 49 (1) , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 356/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. Considering that the assessee could not provide all necessary details to the AO, the tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-2010. The appeal was filed with a delay of 384 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The assessee's AR submitted that the assessee could not provide complete details to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is to be admitted after a significant delay, and whether the case should be restored to the Assessing Officer 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: 02/07/2025Pronounced: 02/07/2025

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 26.10.2023, passed for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2.

Shri S.Kumar, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is barred by 384 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed application supported with an affidavit for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are not found to be false, therefore, the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4.

It was the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee could not provide the details before the Assessing Officer in its entirety. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) with affording sufficient opportunity has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was also submitted that the 2 assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.AO.

5.

In reply, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of ld. AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.

6.

A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee was unable to furnish the details as asked for. A further perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the appellate proceedings However, ld. AR before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the ld.AO to file all the details as required. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. AO for readjudicating the issues on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. AO in the readjudication proceedings, positively.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02/07/2025. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 02/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →