PIXEL COMMOSALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD.-1(4), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present submissions and evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay of 519 days, attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee also requested the matter be restored to the CIT(A) as the impugned order was ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) order was rightly confirmed without providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case, and if 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 ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad
order
: March 30th, 2022 ORDER
Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2012-13 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, Kolkata [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 19.07.2019 vide Appeal No.285/CIT(A)-17/Kol/17-18 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 23.03.2015 by ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata.
There is a delay of 519 days in filing of the appeal. The impugned order was received by the assessee on 29.07.2019. Advocate B.P. Sen Roychodhury was approached and the assessee assured that the documents will be prepared for filing the appeal. In the meantime lock-down was called for owing to COVID-19 Pandemic and this resulted the delay of 519 days. Ld. Sr. D/R opposed the request. However, considering the situation and the circumstances faced by the assessee as mentioned in the condonation application, we find merit in the same. Thus, the delay of 519 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. At The outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and requested that the issue raised in the instant appeal to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) providing one
I.T.A. No.: 51/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pixel CommosalesPvt. Ltd. more opportunity to make necessary submissions. Ld. D/R was fare enough not to oppose this request.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.1,79,50,000/- for unexplained share capital and share premium was made by the AO and the matter was carried before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee did not respond on three occasions. Ld. CIT(A) applying the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in GA No. 509 of 2016 confirmed the addition.
We find that the assessee was not able to appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to some unavoidable circumstances which restrained it to file documentary evidences for explaining the alleged unexplained cash credit. We, therefore, in the interest of justice being fare to both the parties, restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit and for passing a speaking order after considering the submissions and also if necessary, call for the remand report in relation to the documents/additional evidences if any, filed by the assessee in the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and decide the issue in accordance with law after providing necessary opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to remain compliant to the notices received for hearing before the ld. CIT(A) and to restrain from taking adjournments unless and otherwise required for reasonable cause. If the assessee does not appear on three occasions, then the ld. CIT(A) shall pass the order in accordance with law without giving any opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 30th March, 2022.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026