SUBHDATA COMMOSALE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 907/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 February 2025AY 2012-13Bench: us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside the orders of both the authorities below and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to de novo adjudicate the issue. Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purpose

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, subject to the assessee paying Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the IT Bar Association within 60 days. Failure to pay these costs would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A) order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a NIL return for AY 2012-13, but the AO made additions under Section 68. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was time-barred, and they sought condonation of delay and requested that the case be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of additions under Section 68; and whether the case should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to ex parte CIT(A) order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.02.2025Pronounced: 25.02.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 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/250/2023-24/1058176032(1) dated 23.11.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2012-13.

2.

Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 93 days. A separate condonation petition has been placed on file. After considering the averments made in the condonation petition and the reasons stated by the

3. The assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 21.02.2013 declaring its total income NIL. The Assessing Officer made the additions/disallowances u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained income in the assessment order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also an ex parte order. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to set aside the orders of both the authorities below and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer to de novo adjudicate the issue. Ld. Sr. DR opposed this prayer of the assessee.

4.

Since the assessee despite providing sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) did not present itself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the IT Bar Association (ITBA) within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 10,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →