DUI BANDHUR RESTAURANT,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-38(1), MIDNAPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष ।
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.115/KOL/2025
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021)
M/s Dui Bandhur Restaurant
C/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia &
Co., 7, C.R.avenue, 3rd Floor
Kolkata-700072
Vs ITO, Ward-38(1), Kolkata
PAN No. :AAMFD 7348 E
(अपीलार्थी /Appellant)
..
(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)
नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, AR
राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
30/06/2025
घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement
:
03.07.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A),
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 28.08.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 442 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating therein that the employee of the assessee who was looking after the accounting and taxation matter of the assessee firm was suffering from various ailments and was treated by various doctors and was admitted in various hospitals from 05.08.2021 to 03.07.2024. It was submitted that the assessee has also submitted before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the treatment of his accountant with various doctors in various
ITANo.115/KOL/2025
2
hospitals for which proper representation in the case of the assessee was not done. The contents of the affidavit filed before us as under :-
ITANo.115/KOL/2025
Accordingly, ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay and admit the appeal for hearing, to which ld. Sr. DR did not raise any serious objection. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the sufficient reasons mentioned by the assessee in its affidavit which are plausible and not found to be false, I condone the delay of 442 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
ITANo.115/KOL/2025
4
4. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order ex-parte. It was submitted that if one more opportunity be given, the assessee would be able to provided all the required documents in regard to its claim before the ld. CIT(A).
5. In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of both the authorities.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee could not appear during the course of assessment proceedings nor has submitted the required details to substantiate its case. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) also shows that the assessee was unable to produce the supporting documents or concrete data to prove its case. Thus, it is clear that the assessee was unable to substantiate its case either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld.
CIT(A), however, the ld. AR requested before the Bench for one more opportunity so that the assessee could be able to furnish all the relevant documents before the ld. CIT(A). Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the prayer of the ld.AR of the assessee, in the interest of justice, I restore the issues involved in the present appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) positively.
ITANo.115/KOL/2025
5
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.07.2025. (जाजज माथन)
(GEORGE MATHAN)
न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 03.07.2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
(