Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed 143 days late due to administrative issues following a company strike-off. The case involved a reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 based on information regarding transactions with M/s. Osaka Enterprises, which the assessee failed to explain. The Assessing Officer made an assessment under section 144.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(Appeals).
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Gajbadan Commercial Pvt. Limited,..…………Appellant C/o. Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700013 [PAN:AACCG8421A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-6(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Esplanade, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Deep Agrawal, A.R. and Shri Subhankar Ghosh, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Abhijit Adhikary, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: May 05, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 26, 2025 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 9th June, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2010-11.
(A.Y. 2010-2011) Gajbadan Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
The appeal is time barred by 143 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, Shri Suresh Sharma, Erstwhile Director of the assessee-Company filed an affidavit dated 17th January, 2025 saying that due to strike-off by the Registrar of Companies vide order dated 16.08.2013 and remain a strike-off entity since financial year 2012-13 as well as facing significant challenges in keeping track of notices and complying with the procedural requirements, the assessee-company was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When it came to know about the order 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 143 days in filing the appeal 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 appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 143 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Domestic Company and filed its return of income through online for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.1,067/-. The case was reopened on the basis of credible information that M/s. Osaka Enterprises represented by its proprietor M/s. Kautily Kumar Roy opened a current account bearing No. 518011041819. The firm was said to be engaged in supplying garments but the transactions and funds transfers to other firms did not give impression that they were into the same activity and there was no (A.Y. 2010-2011) Gajbadan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. existence of the firm, i.e. M/s. Osaka Enterprises at its given address. The account of the assesese-company was credited by Rs.12,10,000/- from M/s. Osaka Enterprises during the FY 2009- 10 relevant to AY 2010-11. The assessee did not explain the credited amount made in the account of the assessee-company. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2017 and duly served upon the assessee, but the assessee did not comply in response to the notice issued. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 30.06.2017 but no response was received from the side of assessee. As there was repeated non-compliance on the part of assessee to the notices issued, a final show-cause notice was issued to the Director/Principal Officer of the assessee company by post and through e-mail for the sake of clarity, but neither assessee nor it’s A.R. appeared in response to the show-cause notice. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.12,11,070/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 9th June, 2024 for non-cooperative attitude of the assessee-firm.
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.12,11,070/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more 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(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate (A.Y. 2010-2011) Gajbadan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/05/2025.