KULATEGHARI KETERA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SMITY LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. P.C.I.T. - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1846/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 March 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Both appeals were dismissed. ITA 1846 was dismissed as time-barred due to unsubstantiated reasons for the 465-day delay and also deemed unmaintainable before the Tribunal, as an appeal against an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 lies with the CIT(A). ITA 1847 was also dismissed on merits, as the adjournment request was rejected for identical unsubstantiated reasons, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld due to the assessee's failure to produce cogent evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., filed two appeals for AY 2018-19: one against a revision order under Section 263 and another against an order from the CIT(A) under Section 250. The first appeal (ITA 1846) was filed with a delay of 465 days, for which a condonation petition was submitted by the counsel without an affidavit from the assessee. The assessee also repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to submit evidence to various authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; whether the appeal against an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 is maintainable before the Tribunal; and whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to support its claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(ii),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 80P,Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Ankur Goyal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Ankur Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : has been filed by the assessee against the revision order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-5 [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Pr. CIT”] vide order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022-23/1051431096(1) dated 27.03.2023 passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2018-19 and has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi passed u/s. 250 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066728714(1) dated 15.07.2024 for AY 2018-19 & 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ankur Goyel, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

First, we take up ITA No. 1846/Kol/2024.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the consequential order to the order passed u/s. 263 has been passed on 13.03.2024. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed an adjournment letter which reads as follows:

& 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 4. the appeal filed by the assessee is also time barred by 465 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which reads as follows:

5.

As it is noticed that the reasons given by the Ld. AR for the adjournment is vague and is not supported by any evidence the adjournment application stands rejected.

& 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 6. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that this appeal has been posted on multiple occasions and there has been only requests for adjournment. Further, as mentioned by the Ld. Sr. DR, the consequential order has also been passed and effectively, this appeal against the order u/s. 263 has become academic.

7.

Coming to the issue of the delay of 465 days. Admittedly, the condonation of delay petition has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and not by the assessee himself. The Ld. AR for the assessee has transferred the responsibility of the delay on the assessee and there is no affidavit from the assessee explaining the delay. Consequently, the condonation of delay petition being unsubstantiated as also unsupported, we have no other option but to dismiss the appeal of the assessee on account of delay and we do so. Further, a perusal of the Form No. 36 filed in the details of the appeal in clause 3 reveals that it is mentioned that the appeal is against the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 13.03.2024. The said order is not part of the appeal papers. Even otherwise, an appeal against the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 lies to the Ld. CIT(A) and not to the Tribunal. On this ground also the appeal filed by the assessee becomes unmaintainable and is consequently dismissed.

Now, we take up ITA No. 1847/Kol/2024

8.

The Ld. AR of the assessee has sought an adjournment mentioning the reasons as extracted above. The said reasons have been found to be unsubstantiated and rejected when disposing of the appeal of the assessee in of even date. On identical reasons the adjournment application filed by the Ld. AR stands rejected and the appeal is disposed of on merits.

9.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

10. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the grounds of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has been unable to produce any cogent evidence to dislodge the view as per the auditor’s report. Even before the Tribunal no papers have been filed to support the contentions of the assessee. Once the assessee has not filed & 1847/Kol/2024 Kulateghari Ketera Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. AY: 2018-19 the evidence before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority obviously, such fresh evidence cannot be filed before the Tribunal. As the assessee has not filed the paper book also to support his claims, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) stands upheld.

11.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →