Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders for multiple assessment years, which were dismissed due to non-appearance. The assessee filed a condonation petition for a 413-day delay, asserting that former employees whose contact details were on the e-portal failed to communicate notices regarding the proceedings. The original assessment involved disallowances for excess depreciation, under Section 40A(ia), consultancy charges, and bad debts.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reason genuine and bonafide. It decided to restore all appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present submissions and evidence, in the interest of natural justice, given the circumstances of non-communication of notices by former employees.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned due to former employees' failure to communicate notices, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 147, 143(3), 148, 40A(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 respectively. In all the appeals, issues are common, hence taken up together for disposal by taking for AY 2009-10 as a lead case. to 811/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 2012-13 & 2014-15 Selvel Enkon Projects 2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 413 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows- to 811/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 2012-13 & 2014-15 Selvel Enkon Projects On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeals seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs. 14,26,640/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income declaring loss of Rs. 6,10,533/-. The AO, after recording the reasons and taking approval from the competent authority, issued notice u/s 148 and in response to the same, the assessee filed return. The AO after considering the reply of the assessee, disallowed an amount of Rs. 71,24,646/- on account of excess depreciation. The AO has further made disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of an amount of Rs. 10,00,666/- claimed by the assessee as expenditure. The AO has also further made disallowance of consultancy charges and bad debts and assessed the net taxable income at Rs. 86,40,580/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee could not file any submission nor file any documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order in absence of the assessee’s submission and evidences, so interest of justice demands to remit the appeals of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. A.R has submitted that reason of non- appearance before the CIT(A) is that the employees of the partnership firm whose mail-ID and mobile number were shown in the e-portal, in fact they did not communicate regarding the notices or the date of hearing to the assessee, as a result of which, the assessee could not be able to appear before the Ld. CIT(A).
Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of AO when in spite of several opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee failed to submit documents or submission before him. The Ld. CIT(A) in its order has held that during the course of appellate proceedings the assessee has been allowed multiple opportunities, however, no submission has been made so far. Before us, the Ld. A.R by filing an Affidavit (as discussed above) has stated that the employees of the partnership firm whose mail-ID and mobile number were shown in the e-portal due to reason best known to them, did not communicate and according to him, due to non- cooperative of the person who were responsible for looking after the income tax matter, the appeal has been dismissed and in consonance a penalty order was passed.
Keeping in view, the submission made by the assessee as well as going over the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), and for the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeals of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee. All the appeals of the assessee are remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th June , 2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra /राकेश �म�) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 25th June, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Selvel Enkon Projects, 32, Pramatha Choudhuri Sarani, New Alipore- 700053 2. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-29, Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)