SWADESHI DEALER PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2321/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeal. It restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid within 60 days. If the cost is not paid within the stipulated time, the CIT(A)'s order will stand confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-2011, which was dismissed. The appeal was filed with a 64-day delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, and the assessee also failed to provide necessary documents earlier.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence before the Assessing Officer. 3. Imposition of costs for non-cooperation during appellate proceedings.

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

Hearing: 21/05/2025Pronounced: 21/05/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.07.2024 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066819390(1) for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Shri Manish Tiwari, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 64 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are not found to be false. Ld. CIT-DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 64 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is being disposed off.

1.

2 ITANo.2321/Kol/2024 4. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO) to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim.

5.

In reply, ld CIT-DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the ld. AR has made a request before the Bench that if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, we grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. AO by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the assessee to be payable to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court,

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →