M/S MALCOM DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-7(1), KOLKATA

ITA 539/KOL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 March 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 922 days late. The assessee claimed they only learned of the CIT(A)'s ex parte order when receiving an appeal effect notice and promptly sought a certified copy.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to lack of proper service of the CIT(A)'s order and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

order

: March 03, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.01.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

As per the note of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 922 days. The assessee invited our attention to the copy of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) to submit that the assessee came to know about the passing of the aforesaid order only when he received appeal effect notice from the Assessing Officer, the assessee immediately filed an application to obtain certified copy of the order on 15.06.2020 which was received by the assessee in the month of September 2020, the assessee thereafter filed the present appeal on 16.10.2020. A separate affidavit reiterating the above submissions have also been filed by the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also invited our attention to the impugned assessment order to submit that the same is an ex parte order

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Malcom Distributors Pvt. Ltd passed u/s 144 of the Act. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice from the Assessing Officer, therefore, he could not participate in the assessment proceedings. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the counsel engaged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) appeared only once before the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, she failed to appear before the CIT(A) and the assessee was not aware that the case of the assessee was remained unrepresented before the CIT(A). The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, has submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee may be granted one opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer with a direction to him to decide the matter on merits.

The ld. DR though has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. However, no evidence has been brought on the file by the Department that the copy of the impugned order of the CIT(A) was served upon the assessee. In view of this, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to assessee to present his case.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 3rd March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:03.03.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Malcom Distributors Pvt. Ltd 2. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- ,

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Malcom Distributors Pvt. Ltd

CIT(DR),

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →