Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was delayed by 34 days. The Director of the assessee-company claimed they were unaware of the notices and order passed by the Addl./JCIT(Appeals), leading to the ex-parte dismissal of their appeal before the first appellate authority.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 34-day delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the assessee was prevented from filing in time. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the 34-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. 2. Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Karunanjali Transports Pvt. Ltd.,…...………Appellant 22C, Manohar Pukur Road, Kalighat, Kolkata-700029 [PAN:AACCK9740N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-12(3), Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Esplanade, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Miraz D. Shah, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Addl. CIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 25, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Delhi dated 5th September 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The appeal is time barred by 34 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the Director of the assessee-Company filed (A.Y. 2015-2016) Karunanjali Transports Pvt. Ltd. an affidavit dated 23rd June, 2025 saying that the assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 34 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex- parte without going into the merit of the case. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2015-2016) Karunanjali Transports Pvt. Ltd.
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025.