M/S CITY SHOPPE ESTATES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA

At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is delay of 293 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reasons for delay as explained by ld. Authorized Representative is that the assessee was unaware about notices issued by the ld. CIT (A) and only came to know when the ex-parte order was passed by the ld. CIT (A). Due to this, there was an unavoidable delay

We after considering the submissions made by the ld. Authorized Representative and facts placed before us, we are of the view that the delay of 293 days in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause as explained by the assessee. The delay was due to administrative reasons and there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay in filing. In the interest of justice and fair play, we hereby condone the delay in fling the appeal. The appeal will now be heard on merits.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its original return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 139 of the Act on 30.09.2014, showing total income at Rs Nil. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act and duly served notice to the assessee. In compliance to the notice, the assessee filed its return on 02.05.2017. Subsequently, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, which were duly served upon the assessee. After getting the notice, the assessee asked the reasons for such reopening and the ld. AO provided the reasons to the assessee for reopening the case of the assessee and the objection filed by the assessee also disposed off. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO find that assessee received unsecured loan of ₹30 lacs from M/s Terminal Sales (P) Ltd., which was shown as loan creditor. However, the various compliances filed by the assessee in

Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). However, this time, the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT (A) on various dates such as 19.10.203, 30.10.2023 and 14.11.2023 respectively. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has no other option but to pass an ex parte order by upholding the order of the ld. AO.

Aggrieved by the above order the assessee came before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds. However, primary contention of the assessee is that since the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is an ex- parte order and assessee did not get an opportunity to represent its case properly and therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so that the assessee can represent its case properly by filing supported documents before the ld. CIT (A).

On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such prayer made by the assessee stating that although sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee however, assessee failed to comply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, at this stage the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed in limine by upholding the order of the ld. AO.

We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we find that although consecutive notices issued to the assessee however assessee failed to comply to the notices as reflected in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A). However, doing so the ld. CIT (A) without going into merit of the case simply

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