KAMAL FORGINGS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1543/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 March 2025AY 2007-2008Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This restoration is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days and providing proof of payment to the AO; otherwise, the CIT(A)'s order will be confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for AY 2007-08. During the hearing, the assessee's AR claimed non-receipt of the notice, but the CIT DR contended that notice was sent via ITBA and the assessee had responded to a previous notice, indicating awareness of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be re-adjudicated at the AO level given the dispute over notice receipt and the terms for such re-adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Hearing: 03.03.2025Pronounced: 03.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2025 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, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no.ITBA/NFAC/A/2024-25/1066038165(1) dated 26.06.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2007-08.

2.

Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has not received notice. However, it is stated by the Ld. CIT, DR that notice has been sent through ITBA. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that one of the notices have been responded to, therefore, the assessee was well aware that this appeal was under process. Consequently, in the interest of justice, we restore the issue to the file of the AO subject to a payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- by the assessee to the Income Tax Bar Association (ITBA) within 60 days from the date of this order and the proof of such payment is to be produced before the Assessing Officer when the matter is posted for hearing by the Assessing Officer. Should the assessee fail to make the payment of the cost within the stipulated time and produce the receipt thereof, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with the directions given above.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →