ANIL KUMAR AGARWALA,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 187-day delay, finding it was due to lack of knowledge and not negligence. The case was remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a fair hearing and a caution for prompt cooperation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was delayed by 187 days, which the assessee attributed to not receiving hearing notices and a prior advocate's failure to advise timely filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the 187-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 07/05/2025Pronounced: 13/06/2025

आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.05.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee even the case was called for second round of hearing. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off considering the facts and material available on record as well as considering the submission of the ld. Sr. DR. 3. On perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 187 days. In this regard the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supporting with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay that the assessee has not received any hearing notice through its registered e-mail by the ld. CIT(A). It has also been mentioned that the Advocate engaged for the Tribunal matter did not 2 ITANo.254/KOL/2025 advise to file appeal within the prescribed time. When the assessee engaged another advocate, he advised that there has already been a delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 187 days and requested for condoning the delay.

4.

Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection in condoning the delay, however, he vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

I have heard the submission of the ld. Sr.DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee was unable to furnish cogent evidence before either of the authorities below. So far as delay in filing the present appeal is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the plea taken by the assessee that the delay was occurred due to lack of knowledge about the passing of the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the delay has occurred not due to negligence of the assessee but it is only due to lack of knowledge about the passing of the assessment order. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, I condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose off the case of the assessee on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), failing which the ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass 3 ITANo.254/KOL/2025 appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on record. Thus, the grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →