ANKIT DEALERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 10(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2373/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 March 2025AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's application. The appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the stipulated time, with a delay of 255 days. The assessee also claimed non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A) due to notices going into spam, leading to an ex parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to non-representation caused by technical issues.

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

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCA
For Respondent: Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT
Hearing: 25.03.2025Pronounced: 25.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCA Respondent by : Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeal by the assessee is 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/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059733437(1) dated 15.01.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2016-17.

2.

Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT appeared on behalf of the Respondent and Shri Abhishek Bansal, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is time barred by 255 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been placed in file. Considering the averments made in the said application, we find that there is plausible

4.

The first issue, inter alia, raised by the assessee is non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte. Assessee also submitted that since the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) directly went into spam folder and missed the attention of the assessee resulting into non-compliance. Under this circumstance, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in this appeal of the assessee are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Liberty is also granted to the assessee to submit additional evidence including other legal grounds before the Ld. CIT(A).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →