BURDWAN IRONE & STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX WARD 1(1)KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 936/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 January 2025AY 2012-2013Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The case was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal after a delay of 347 days. The delay was due to the assessee's counsel's absence and non-compliance with notices, leading to an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was initially assessed with a total income of Rs. 5,71,95,100/- after reopening under Section 148.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT(A) despite previous non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 16.02.2023 for AY 2012-13.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Burdwan Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. 2. At the very outset, it appears from the record that the appeal has been filed after delay of 347 days. The Ld. Counsel has filed a condonation petition stating the grounds which is as follows:

3.

The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Burdwan Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. 4. Keeping in view, in the catena of the decision as well as going over the contentions made in the petition, we are in this view that the appeal should be taken into hearing by condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned.

5.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 31,06,311/-. Subsequently on the information received from the Investigation Wing, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Assessee did neither file return nor any compliance of the notice has been made, as a result of which, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment, and order us/ 144 was passed by computing the total income at Rs. 5,71,95,100/-.

6.

Aggrieved by this order the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of non- prosecution.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the present appeal has been filed.

7.

The Ld. Counsel instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only submitted that the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed on account of non-prosecution, so the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee has cited the same ground as discussed in condonation petition to establish his genuineness of non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A).

8.

The Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.

9.

On perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A) it appears to us that it has been dismissed only on account of non-prosecution. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that since the assessee did not respond any of the notices hence it is deemed that the assessee has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeal. Accordingly, we upheld the assessment order passed by the AO. The submission of the assessee is that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Keeping in view the petition filed as stated above, we are inclined to afford an opportunity to the assessee to Assessment Year: 2012-13 Burdwan Iron & Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. place its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. The case record is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2025

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →