SYNDICATE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers

ITA 159/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 March 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.

What were the facts?

A group of 18 appeals by three assessees (Rajendra Tosawad, Neelam Tosawad, and Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.) stemmed from a search and seizure operation conducted on January 18, 2017. The assessees had largely failed to appear or adequately represent their cases before the Ld. CIT(A), leading to orders passed against them, and later sought adjournment citing financial hardships. One appeal had a 115-day delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether assessees should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A) despite previous non-compliance, and the terms for remanding appeals for re-adjudication while upholding natural justice principles.

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 SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT, DR

Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 158 /Kol/2025

ITA No. 175 /Kol/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e (Adjournment petition rejected) Respondent by : Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : All these 18 captioned appeals have been filed by three different assessees against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide orders dated 12.11.2024 (for IT(SS) Nos. 6 to 11/Kol/2025, dated 26.06.2024, for IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, AYs. 2011-12 to 2016-17), dated 13.11.2024 (for IT(SS)A No.158/Kol/2025, AY 2017-18), dated 30.09.2024 (for IT(SS) A No.159/Kol/2025, AY 2010-11), dated 24.10.2024 (for IT(SS) No. 160/Kol/2025, AY 2010-11), dated 12.11.2024 (for IT(SS) No. 175/Kol/2025 for AY 2010-11), dated 24.10.2024 (for IT(SS)A No. 147 to 153/Kol/2024, for AYs.2011-12 to 2017-18 dated 24.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 1.1. It is seen that in IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, there is a delay of 115 days which has been requested to be condoned on the ground that the search action led to extreme financial hardships, due to which a suitable counsel could not be engaged. Thus, finally appropriate action could not be taken. The reasons for delay are plausible and thus, the delay is condoned.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri P.N. Barnwal, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

2.1. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, undated adjournment letters have been filed, wherein it is mentioned as follows:

4 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 Adjournment applications have been rejected. This is because on 18.03.2025 the assessee had filed a letter for consolidation of all the appeals together and for fixing the appeals together on 20.03.2025. The application for consolidation reads as under:

5 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 At the request of the assessee all the appeals have been consolidated and posted for hearing today. Now, the assessee has sought time.

It was submitted by the Ld. DR that this was a group of cases which were subject to a search on 18.01.2017. Additional income has been 6 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 offered in the course of search and assessments had been completed thereon 3.1. A perusal of the case records, with the help of Ld. DR, has revealed that all these 18 cases pertain to a single group and all these appeals have their roots in a search and seizure action on the Syndicate Jewellers Group of cases. Thus, admittedly, all these 18 cases are interconnected in some way or another.

3.2. It is also seen that in some of the cases there has been sketchy presentation of facts and for this reason, in some of the cases, the assessees have pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that adequate opportunities were not provided to them. This has led to a Remand Report being called for in one case pertaining to Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. case [IT(SS)A No. 147/Kol/2024 for AY 2011-12]. However, it is seen that on being confronted with the said remand report, the assessee concerned has not responded before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also noticed that in cases belonging to Rajendra Tosawad there has been absolutely no representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Similarly, in the one case of Neelam Tosawad also there has been no representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, it deserves to be held that barring the case of M/s. Syndicate Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2011- 12, there has been no worthwhile compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

It was the submission by the Ld. DR that admittedly, no fresh evidence could be produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, the orders of the lower authorities are liable to be upheld.

We have considered the submission of the Ld. CIT, DR and also gone through the records. A perusal of the facts of the group of cases shows that in some of the cases there have been attempts at filing evidence before the 7 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 Ld. CIT(A) but in most of the cases there is no response to the various notices sent for hearing. Even before the ld. Assessing Officer, the representation has been sketchy. Though, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT, DR that fresh evidence should not be entertained by the Tribunal, however, considering the fact that natural justice is a predominant factor when adjudicating an appeal and in the interest of natural justice we deem it fit to give adequate opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its cases. Thus, the issues in all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after setting aside all the impugned orders subject to a levy of cost in the following manner:

Sl. No. Amount of cost IT(SS)A. No.

Rs. 1,00,000/- 6/Kol/2025 2. Rs.50,000/- 7/Kol/2025 3. Rs.50,000/- 8/Kol/2025 4. Rs.1,00,000/- 9/Kol/2025 5. Rs.50,000/- 10/Kol/2025 6. Rs.50,000/- 11/Kol/2025 7. Rs.1,00,000/- 158/Kol/2025 8. Rs.1,00,000/- 159/Kol/2025 9. Rs. 1,00,000/- 160/Kol/2025 10. Rs.1,00,000/- 175/Kol/2025 11. Rs.1,00,000/- 146/Kol/2024 12. Rs.1,00,000/- 147/Kol/2025 13. Rs.1,00,000/- 148/Kol/2025 14. Rs.1,00,000/- 149/Kol/2025 15. Rs.1,00,000/- 150/Kol/2025 16. Rs.1,00,000/- 151/Kol/2025 17. Rs.1,00,000/- 152/Kol/2025 18. Rs.1,00,000/- 153/Kol/2025

This being so, the issues in all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh subject to the assessee paying a cost as mentioned above to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd floor of the 8 IT(SS)A Nos.6-11/Kol/2025, & 160/Kol/2025, ITA Nos175/Kol/2025, IT(SS)A No. 146/Kol/2024, IT(SS)A Nos. 147 to 153/Kol/2024 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 orders of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes subject to the direction given above.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →