Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
M/s Rupahali Sarees Pvt. Ltd., 1, Wood Street - 700016 [PAN: AABCR6127R] ..............…...…………….... Appellant vs. I.T.O. Ward 8(3), Kolkata ..…................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sudhindra Nath Nag, FCA Department represented by : Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 29.04.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 07.05.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order dated 22.12.2023 for AY 2014-15.
1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 143 r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 28.12.2019. Through this order, the Ld. AO enhanced the income of the assessee in light of directions given u/s 263 by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Aggrieved with this action of Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where apparently, as has been recorded in pages 6 and 7 of the impugned order that three notices sent for hearing were not responded to by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A)
Further, with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds, quite a few of which challenge the order u/s 263 of the Act and has also challenged the fact that the subsequent order of Ld. AO was barred by limitation.
2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were bad in law and subsequently the proceedings before the Ld. AO were also bad in law since they were barred by limitation. The Ld. AR also assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A), but also mentioned that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel the notices issued from the office of Ld. CIT(A) were not responded to.
2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have also gone through the records before us. It deserves to be mentioned at this stage that the impugned order for adjudication before us is the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 22.12.2023. Accordingly, the merit of any order u/s 263 of the Act cannot be adjudicated by us since separate channels of appeal are prescribed for such orders. Accordingly, any of the grounds of the assessee challenging the action u/s 263 of the Act are dismissed since they are not adjudicable before us. Regarding the grounds pertaining to the merit of the matter it is seen that since the assessee could not make a presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(A), hence he deserves a chance to do so and therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, while the Ld. CIT(A) would give ample opportunity of being heard, the assessee would do well to avail of such opportunities.
With these remarks, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.