USHA CONSTRUCTION,NADIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -41, NADIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 174/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 April 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return for AY 2016-17. The case was selected for scrutiny and an assessment order was passed. Subsequently, an order under Section 263 was passed by the PCIT, setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The assessee's appeal before the PCIT was dismissed due to a delay of 36 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 26.11.2024 for AY 2016-17.

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Usha Construction 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being a partnership firm filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs. 1,37,28,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued, in response to the same the assessee submitted details as called for by ACIT and ACIT passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) by adding an amount of Rs. 79,375/- and Rs. 17,44,587/- in the disclosed total income of the assessee. An order u/s 263 was passed by PCIT wherein the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) set aside with a direction to pass a afresh assessment order. In compliance to the same, the assessee has been noticed, and AO after considering the submission made by the assessee added Rs. 59,58,454/- in the determined total income of the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 the assessee filed an appeal before the PCIT wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. Counsel of the assessee instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay of only 36 days and no opportunity has been provided to the assessee to explain the delay. The prayer of the assessee is to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay with a direction to pass afresh order.

5.

The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and find that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that there is no sufficient cause mentioned by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. Before us, the ld. Counsel filed medical certificate and submitted that due to illness of partner Shri Kalyan Kumar Singh of the assessee company, the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period. The ld. Counsel Assessment Year: 2016-17 Usha Construction submits that reassessment order was passed on 30.03.2022 and the appeal had been filed on 04.06.2024 and there is a delay of only 36 days. Keeping in view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and for the interest of justice, the appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The delay as caused is hereby condoned. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a afresh and reasoned order after giving an opportunity to the assessee to place its case. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2025

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 16th April, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Usha Construction, Lalpur, Natunpara, Chakdaha, Nadia-741222 2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-41, Nadia 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →