MD ROFIKUL ISLAM,MURSHIDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42, MURSHIDABAD

ITA 1740/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 March 2025AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal was reasonable, and therefore, there was no delay in the filing of the appeal. Regarding the merit of the case, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities. Considering this against the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity for adjudication. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days from the date of the order. The receipt of payment was to be produced before the CIT(A) at the first hearing. The Tribunal further stipulated that if the costs were not paid within the prescribed period, the order of the CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes subject to these directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Md. Rofikul Islam, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The ITAT noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 262 days. The assessee provided a clarification, asserting no delay, which the Tribunal found reasonable. The assessee's representative informed the Tribunal that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A). The Revenue opposed the assessee's prayer to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the issue for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is within the prescribed time limit, considering a delay of 262 days, and if not, whether the delay is condonable under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A), given its non-appearance in the previous proceedings. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal and provided a detailed explanation. (Relied on clarification placed at pages 122-129 of its paper book). - The assessee prayed to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication afresh, acknowledging non-appearance before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Date of concluding the hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 27 .03.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056611251(1) dated 27.09.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18.

Shri Tarak Jaiswal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

Md. Rofikul Islam 3. The Registry has recorded that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 262 days. However, the assessee has filed a clarification that there is no delay (placed at pages 122-129 of its paper book). The detailed explanation of the assessee has been perused and the claim of the assessee is found to be reasonable and it is held that there is no delay in the filing of the said appeal.

3.1. In relation to merit it was submitted by the Ld. AR that unfortunately the assessee has not appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to his file for adjudication afresh. Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.

Since the assessee, despite being provided with sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), did not present itself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that in the interests of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) 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. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →