Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were time-barred by 146 days. The assessee claimed ignorance of hearing notices and the CIT(Appeals) order, and pleaded for condonation of delay. The CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without considering the merits, relying on the Assessing Officer's order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 146 days, acknowledging the assessee's claim of being prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merit, ensuring natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(Appeals) order passed ex-parte without considering the merits should be set aside.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
(A.Y. 2011-2012) Fast Trac Merchants Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) & 196/KOL/2025 Assessment Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Fast Trac Merchants Pvt. Limited,……………Appellant Gujarat Bhawan, 17, Tara Chand Dutta Street, Kolkata-700073 [PAN:AABCF2155M] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,……..Respondent Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances by: Shri R.R. Choudhury, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeals bearing 196/KOL/2025 are directed at the instance of assessee against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-27, both dated 13th June, 2024 passed for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.
(A.Y. 2011-2012) Fast Trac Merchants Pvt. Limited 2. The appeal is time barred by 146 days in filing of both the appeals by the assessee. However, the assessee did not file the condonation petition. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench 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 orders 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 146 days in filing the appeals 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 appeals within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 146 days. Hence the delay is condoned in both the appeals.
The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. At the assessment stage, the assessee was asked to explain why profit and loss entry should not be treated as accommodation entry since the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details in respect of transactions made with the entities. ld. Assessing Officer treated the submission of the assessee as unacceptable. The ld. CIT(Appeals) just relying on the order of ld. Assessing Officer dismissed the appeals and pleaded to set aside both the orders of revenue authorities. 2
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. CIT(Appeals). He contended that the case was transferred to the charge of ld. CIT(Appeals)-27, Kolkata from the charge of ld. CIT(Appeals)-21, Kolkata on 24.04.2023. Due to change of charge, vide fresh notices under section 250 of the Act dated 01.01.2024 and 11.01.2024, the assessee was requested to file its reply in support of its appeal. However, no response was received from the end of the assessee. Therefore the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is fit cases to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merit and with a direction to dispose of the appeals without any inference on the observations of earlier orders passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials (A.Y. 2011-2012) Fast Trac Merchants Pvt. Limited available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025.