Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, IMAX Projects India Limited, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) for AY 2015-16, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was delayed by 393 days, for which condonation was sought, citing reliance on a Chartered Accountant who failed to appear and lack of opportunity to produce documents, leading to an upholding of an addition of Rs.1,53,38,143 by the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's reasonable cause. It restored the issues to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is provided an adequate opportunity of being heard. This restoration is conditional upon the assessee paying costs of Rs.50,000/- to Legal Aid Services.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal, filed with a significant delay, should be admitted; and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IMAX Projects India Limited ITO Ward 11(2) 116, N.S.C. Bose Road, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Ranikuthi-700040 chowringhee Square, Kolkata- West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (PAN: AACCI1617C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Kapil Mandal, DR Date of Hearing : 16.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 O R D E R
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2015-16 dated 29.11.2023.
The registry has informed that the appeal is delayed by 393 days. It is observed that along with the memo of appeal, the assessee has also filed an application/affidavit seeking condonation of delay and has re- quested that the delay may be condoned. Considering the application seeking condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are sat- isfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit.
We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as un- der:
“GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. For that in fact and under the circumstances of the case your petitioner humbly submits that he is not well conversant with the Income Tax laws and had to rely on Chartered Accountant to file the appeal and appear on behalf of the Company and for that their representative did not attend to the cases in time resulting in upholding of the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2. For that in fact and under the circumstances of the case the Ld. Adjudicat- ing Officer did not give opportunity to produce the documents in support of its claim for seeking relief in appeal which is bad in law and against the cause of natural justice.
3. For that the upholding of addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.1,53,38,143/ being the sale consideration without adjustment of the purchase cost/indexed cost of purchase is bad in law and against the cause of natural justice. For that your petitioner craves leave for making additions, alternations, mod- ifications and/or deletion of any of the above-mentioned ground(s) of appeal and to produce such documents and case laws in support of its claim for seeking relief for which your petitioner shall be ever grateful.”
04. At the outset, it was the submission of the Ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving suffi- cient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee is able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the Ld. CIT(A). In reply, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of CIT(A) would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) at para 5.1 shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the appellate proceed- ings However, Ld. AR before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the Ld. CIT(A) to file all the details as re- quired. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee 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 produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing and on failure of the assessee to do so, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st July, 2025.