SAYONARA COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA

ITA 18/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 March 2025AY 2014-20153 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Director appeared before the ITAT and explained that the non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to improper service of notices owing to a change of address. The correct address was provided to the ITAT. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to issue notices to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36. As a condition for this relief, the assessee is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Department within sixty days from the date of the order. Failure to pay this cost within the stipulated period will result in the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes subject to these directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sayonara Commerce Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was filed with a delay of 1071 days. The assessee contended that notices were not properly served due to a change of address. The correct address provided was "86B/2, Topsia Road, South, 2nd Floor, Gajraj Chamber, Kolkata-700046." The ITAT condoned the delay after considering the assessee's affidavit. It was noted that the assessee did not represent its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not allowing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is a question of mixed law and fact, concerning the principles of natural justice under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that notices were not properly served due to a change of address, and therefore, it was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the opportunity of being heard. However, the revenue was represented by a Senior Departmental Representative.

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 Appellant: Shri Tirtha Pratim Basu, AR

For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Tirtha Pratim Basu, AR 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 : 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/250/2021-22/1037170526(1) dated 24.11.2021 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2014-15.

Shri Tirtha Pratim Basu, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 1071 days. In respect of the condonation of delay the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Considering the averments made in the said affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

Sayonara Commerce P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 4. 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 also raised the issue that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not allowing proper opportunity of being heard. Before us, Director of the assessee company had appeared. He submitted before us that the notices were not properly served due to change of address. The correct address is given in the Form No. 36 which reads as follows: “ 86B/2, Topsia Road, South, 2nd Floor, Gajraj Chamber, Kolkata-700046.”

5. Consequently, the issues are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The notice may be issued to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 i.e. “86B/2, Topsia Road, South, 2nd Floor, Gajraj Chamber, Kolkata-700046.” On account of the non-representation and wastage of time of the department a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is to be paid 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 Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 25,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 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 →