BLUEVIEW TRADEVIN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1717/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 March 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANAJY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a significant delay and no condonation of delay was sought. Multiple adjournment requests were made, and there were discrepancies in the provided documentation, including a questioned signature on an adjournment application. Due to the unrectified defects and unexplained delay, the tribunal found no reason to grant further adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. The appeal was filed belatedly by 2628 days, and no condonation of delay petition was filed. The assessee also filed multiple adjournment applications, and the signature on one of the applications was questioned. The revenue was represented by the Addl. CIT, Sr. DR.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, without a condonation of delay petition and with unrectified defects, can be admitted for hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANAJY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 26.03.2025Pronounced: 26.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : None (Adjournment application filed) Respondent by : Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 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)-23, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide Appeal No. 121/CIT(A)-23/Tech-2/16-17 dated 04.04.2017 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee (adjournment application has been filed) and Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

An application for adjournment dated 24.03.2025 has been placed on file mentioning the following grounds:

4. A perusal of the said application shows that the appeal is time barred by 2628 days. No condonation of delay petition has been filed. It was mentioned here that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on 04.04.2017. The assessee has filed his appeal on 13.08.2024. Defect notice has been issued to the assessee mentioning that the appeal is time barred by 2628 days. We find that Column No. 6 is also wrongly filled. Also, condonation Blueview Tradevin Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13 petition for delay is not filed. Furthermore, the date of service or communication of order in column 3 (c) is not correctly filled in. The appeal has been posted on multiple occasions for 14.10.2024, 11.12.2024 and 12.02.2025. Adjournment application has been filed on 07.01.2025 by one Shri Raj Kumar Gupta as the Director/A.R for the assessee company. Adjournment application has been filed on 09.12.2024 by one Shri Kunal Goswami as the Director/Authority of the assessee company. The appeal has been verified by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta. The present adjournment application dated 24.03.2025 is also signed by one Shri Kunal Goswami, Director/A.R. It would be worthwhile herein to extract the adjournment application dated 09.12.2024 which is as follows:

Blueview Tradevin Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2012-13 5. The adjournment letter filed dated 23.03.2025 prima facie shows that the signature of the said Kunal Goswami differs. Thus, firstly, the adjournment application itself is in question and secondly even after multiple opportunities have been granted, the assessee has not rectified the defects in the appeal filed and, therefore, as the delay has not been explained nor has any defect been rectified, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →