Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-2012, claiming insufficient opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) noted the assessee's non-cooperation in appellate proceedings, and the appeal before the tribunal was filed with a delay of 464 days.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 464-day delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This is subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs.50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within sixty days.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, passed due to alleged non-cooperation by the assessee, should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/s Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Vs ACIT, Circle-2, Durgapur Development Limited, Bug-5, Upper Ground Floor, City Centre, Durgapur-713216 PAN No. :AABCB 8990 N (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.04.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052357794(1), for the assessment year 2011-2012.
Shri Sunil Surana, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, we find that the appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 464 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay of 464 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits.
4. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld. CIT(A).
In reply, Ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO. It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of CIT(A) would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) at para 5.2, shows that the assessee has not cooperated in the appellate proceedings However, ld. AR before us requested for one more opportunity to produce the documents before the ld. CIT(A) to file all the details as required. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudicating the issues afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the assessee to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta- 700001, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. In case the receipt is not duly produced within the time mentioned, the action of the ld. CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in the readjudication proceedings, positively.