SANDEEP KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -30(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 770/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Observing that the Ld. CIT(A) did not present itself, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of justice. The issues were restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to payment of costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was filed after a delay of 234 days, for which a condonation petition was filed and accepted. The assessee's counsel argued that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was in violation of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity being provided to the assessee? Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri PK Himmatsinghka, AR
For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, DR
Hearing: 22.05.2025Pronounced: 22.05.2025

O R D E R PER BENCH:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.06.2023 for the AY 2011-12.

2.

Shri PK Himmatsinghka appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, JCIT appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

This appeal of assessee is time barred by 234 days and a separate condonation of delay petition along with affidavit has been placed on file. Considering the averments made in the said application, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

4.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Act was without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and as such the order is bereft of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. Since the assessee despite being provided with sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →