JAISWAL TUBE CENTRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(3)., KOLKATA

ITA 2289/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 March 2025AY 2012-20133 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural issues, including the unsigned adjournment application and the assessee's prior non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This restoration is subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable to Legal Aid Services within sixty days. The receipt of payment must be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) at the first hearing. If the cost is not paid within the stipulated period, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) will stand confirmed. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jaiswal Tube Centre Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was filed against an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the hearing before the ITAT, the assessee's authorized representative filed an unsigned adjournment application, which was rejected. The ITAT noted that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities before the Ld. CIT(A) but remained unrepresented. The assessee had also indicated opting for a VSVS scheme and withdrawing the appeal. Despite these procedural issues, the ITAT decided to restore the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be decided on merits given the procedural irregularities and lack of representation by the assessee before the lower authorities and the Tribunal. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought an adjournment, indicating a potential withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the VSVS scheme. While not explicitly argued, the filing of an appeal implies a desire to contest the order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue was represented, and the judgment does not record specific arguments from their side regarding the merits of the case, but implicitly supports the upholding of the lower authority's order due to the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjit Pal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT

Hearing: 27.03.2025Pronounced: 27.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Chiranjit Pal, AR Respondent by : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 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), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057069310(1) dated 16.10.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.

Shri Chiranjit Pal, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR filed an unsigned adjournment application, therefore, the same is rejected. Further, Shri Suryaneel Das, Advocate appeared without uniform. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT appeared on behalf of the revenue.

Jaiswal Tube Centre P. Ltd. AY: 2012-13 3. The adjournment application filed by the Ld. AR of the assessee is rejected since it is an unsigned application and Shri Suryaneel Das, Advocate appeared without being properly uniformed. Adjournment application is sought to be filed by Mr. Chiranjit Pal, Advocate. The application is unsigned. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that multiple opportunities were given to the assessee but the assessee was unrepresented. Further perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that on the first hearing notice was issued on 19.02.2021. The assessee has submitted that the assessee has opted for VSVS scheme and thereby withdrawing the appeal. Subsequently, on 09.02.2022 before the Ld. CIT(A) adjournment was sought and after that there was no response. Even before us, no details are forthcoming. However, in the interest of justice and so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication subject to the cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only payable to 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 cost 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 purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →