What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 819-day delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, with a directive for the assessee to cooperate.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A), which was delayed by 819 days. The assessee had failed to appear before both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) during previous proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

Canning Mahila Co-Operppative… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 07/05/2025Pronounced: 07/05/2025

(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Canning Mahila Cooperative Vs ITO, Ward-26(4), Kolkata Credit Society Limited, Cinema Road, Canning Town Canning Sought 24 Parganas West Bengal PAN No. :AACAC 2720 L (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex- Chairman of the assessee society. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 05.05.2022, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1042955890(1), for the assessment year 2017-2018.

Ms. Swagata Ghosh Das, Ex-Chairman of the assessee society appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Praveen Kishore, Sr. DR Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

On perusal of the appeal record, we find that the appeal of the assessee delayed by 819 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient and plausible reasons for delay and the reasons are not found to be false. Accordingly,

CANNING MAHILA CO-OPERPPATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,CANNING vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments