RISORGIMENTO INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It was held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed late by 1471 days due to non-service of the appellate order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without dealing with the merits of the case. The Assessing Officer had made additions under Section 14A and Section 56(2)(viia).
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the additions made by the AO. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SRI MANISH BORAD & SRI SONJOY SARMA
order
: June 15th, 2022 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2014-15 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 20.02.2019 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2016.
Registry has informed that the present appeal is time barred by 1471 days. On going through the affidavit filed by the assessee stating the reasons for the said delay, we find that the appellate I.T.A. No.: 88/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Risorgimento Industrial Co. Ltd. order was not served upon the assessee either by post or by e-mail. After filing letter to the concerned CIT(A), a certified copy of the appellate order was issued to the assessee on February, 2021. Thereafter, immediately the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. We find sufficient force and reasonable cause for such delay and thus, condone the delay of 1471 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 3. A perusal of Form-36 filed by the assessee, Form-35 filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) reveals that two additions have been made by the ld. Assessing Officer (in short ld. “AO”) in the assessment order dated 24.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, firstly, disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 4,75,649/- and secondly, u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act at Rs. 3,28,125/-. Both these additions were confirmed by ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has challenged the same before this Tribunal. However, on perusal of the impugned order it is revealed that it is an ex-parte order and ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. 4. Ld. D/R had no objection if the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 5. We, therefore, after hearing ld. D/R and perusing the records placed before us, in the interest of justice, deem fit to restore the two issues i.e. addition u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 4,75,649/- and addition u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act at Rs. 3,28,125/- for de-novo adjudication to ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and file necessary documents, if considered, in support of I.T.A. No.: 88/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Risorgimento Industrial Co. Ltd. its grounds of appeal
and should not take adjournment, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. In case after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance before the ld. CIT(A), then ld. CIT(A) can pass the speaking order in accordance with law.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 15th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 15.06.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Risorgimento Industrial Co. Ltd., 8, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 013.
2. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-2, Kolkata. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026