Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
Present for: Appellant by : N o n e Respondent by : Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068020969(1) dated 27.08.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2014-15.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
3. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the assessee has not represented its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the grounds of appeal before us, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Adhyam Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.., AY: 2014-15 “1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in passing the order in the manner he did, on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Assessing Officer is opposed to law and the principle of natural justice, and thus the impugned ex-parte order is liable to be set aside.
2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the 148 notice issued on 28.07.2022 is null and void as the same is in violation of CBDT circular no 19/2019.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the notice issued under section 148 is null and void as the same is in violation of CBDT notification no 18/2022 dated 29 March 2022.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that the JAO/ITO ward 9(1) Kolkata has erred in assuming the jurisdiction while passing the order under section 148A(d), whereas all the relevant documents placed on record show that the appellant was subject to jurisdiction at Delhi. Thus, the order passed under section 148A(d) for initiation of the reassessment proceeding is null and void ab initio.
5. That the Ld. Assessing officer ought to have appreciated that the reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 was barred by limitation under section 149.
That the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the claim of the Appellant and ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.80,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act, which is bad in law since the Appellant has all the supporting documents that could have been produced had there been a reasonable opportunity provided to the Appellant.
That the Appellant carves leaves to add, alter amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal
before or at the time of hearing.”
4. It is noticed that the assessee has also been non-responsive before the Tribunal. Admittedly, facts raised before us for deciding the legal issues. This being so, and so as to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case and produce evidence the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication as the assessee has been non-responsive before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before the Tribunal. Therefore, in the interests of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Department under challan 500 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 cost of Rs. 25,000/-
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.