SANJAY BANIK,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD-23(1), HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2351/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. In the interest of justice, and acknowledging the assessee's admitted failure, the Tribunal restored all issues in the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals against CIT(A) orders for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16, with significant delays (1280 days for two appeals, 60 days for one) which were condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee admitted to a failure in producing all evidence before the Assessing Officer due to not following up with the AR's portal regarding notices.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals. 2. Whether to provide the assessee with another opportunity to furnish evidence before the Assessing Officer due to prior non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Hearing: 01/05/2025Pronounced: 01/05/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.01.2021 and 26.06.2024, for the assessment years 2012- 2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee in all the appeals. Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue in all the appeals. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the record, it is found that two of the appeals of the assessee are filed belatedly by 1280 days each while one is late by 60 days and in this regard, ld. AR has filed application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit stating the reasons which are plausible and are not found to be false. Though the ld. Sr. DR objected to condone the delay in filing all the three appeals, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a non-speaking order, therefore, we condone the delay of 1280 days delay each in filing all the three appeals and appeals are admitted for hearing.

4.

During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the there was a failure on the part of the assessee to produce all the evidence before the Assessing Officer as the assessee at that point of time had failed to follow up with the AR’s portal in respect of notices issued 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 all the appeals afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate his claim before the ld. AO.

5.

In reply, ld Sr DR did not raise any serious objection, however, it was submitted that the assessee could have been more careful in its tax matter.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that there is an admitted failure on the part of the assessee to provide all the details before the Assessing Officer and, thus, in the interest of justice, we grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer by restoring the issues in all the appeals to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →