SNOWFALL COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(3), KOLKATA

ITA 1181/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 March 2025AY 2010-113 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeals, considering the averments made in the condonation petitions. However, due to the assessee's consistent non-representation before the lower authorities, indicating a lackadaisical approach, the Tribunal was not inclined to grant further opportunities without conditions. In the interest of natural justice, the matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This restoration was made subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for AY 2010-11 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for AY 2011-12 to the Department within sixty days. The receipts for these payments were to be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that if these costs were not paid within the prescribed period, the orders of the CIT(A) would stand confirmed. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to these directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Snowfall Commercial Pvt. Ltd., filed appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010-11 and 2011-12. These orders were passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed with a delay of 9 days. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) in the proceedings below. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the non-representation and the lackadaisical approach of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are to be admitted for hearing despite being time-barred, and if so, on what conditions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and condonation of delay under the Income Tax Act, 1961). The assessee, through its condonation of delay petitions, implicitly argued for the admission of its appeals. The revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, did not present any specific arguments regarding the admission or merits of the case, but the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-representation before lower authorities. The Tribunal's primary concern was the assessee's failure to appear and the delay in filing the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/ NFAC /S /250/ 2023-24/ 1055380373(1) & ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/ 2023-24/ 1055378591(1) both dated 24.08.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Sucheta Chattopadhyay Roy, CIT (DR) appeared on behalf of the revenue.

Both the appeals of the assessee are time barred by 9 days. Separate condonation of delay petitions have been placed in file. Considering the

A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not represented its appeal before both the authorities below. Considering the non-representation before the lower authorities on account of lackadaisical approach of the assessee, we are not inclined to grant any further opportunity but in the interest of natural justice, we feel that the issue must be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for the AY 2010-11 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for the AY 2011-12 to be paid to the Department under challan 500 within sixty days from the date of this order and receipts of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- 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, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →