KRISHNA PHARMA DISTRIBUTORS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), , KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 856/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 June 2025AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the reasons for delay, as explained by the assessee in Form No.35, to be plausible. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed four appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, which were dismissed due to delay. The assessee submitted that reasons for the delay were provided in the statement of facts but were not considered by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matters remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 24/06/2025Pronounced: 25/06/2025

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA Nos.856/KOL/2025
ITA Nos.857/KOL/2025
ITA Nos.858/KOL/2025
ITA Nos.859/KOL/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM : These are four appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders all dated 16.08.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-2018 & 2018- 2019.

2.

Shri Miraj D Shah, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri P.N.Barnwal, ld.CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

At the out, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. It was the submission that in the statement of facts, the assessee has provided the reasons for delay. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same. It was also submitted that the delay may kindly be condoned and the 2 assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld. CIT(A).

4.

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 We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) in all the cases under consideration, shows that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. Though as per the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee in column No.14 has mentioned as no delay, however, a perusal of the statement of facts submitted in Form No.35, the assessee has categorically explained in regard to delay in filing all the four appeals before the ld. CIT(A), which are found to be plausible. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing all the four appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issues in all the appeals to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Thus, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →