INDRANIDEVI INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2332/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 February 2026AY 2018-20193 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the Assessing Officer, preventing a decision on merits. The NFAC also rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal found that restoring the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer would serve the ends of justice. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the appeal denovo, taking into account all the evidence the assessee may file, and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indranidevi Institute Education, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.09.2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence to the Assessing Officer (AO) in response to various notices. Similarly, before the NFAC, additional evidence was filed but not admitted because no petition was filed under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. The assessee requested the matter be restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, considering the assessee's failure to furnish evidence before the AO and the rejection of additional evidence by the NFAC. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that due to failure to furnish necessary evidence before the AO and the subsequent rejection of additional evidence by the NFAC (without admitting a petition under Rule 46A), the appeal should be restored to the Assessing Officer. The assessee sought a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present its case. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue opposed the prayers of the assessee's counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Ananda Sen &, Shri Sabyasachi Mondal, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 26.02.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 24.09.2024 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not furnish before the ld. AO the necessary evidences as required by the ld. AO by issuing various notices. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A) also that the assessee has filed some additional evidences, which were not admitted on the ground that no petition was filed under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the issue may be kindly be restored to the

3.

The ld. DR on the other hand opposed the prayers of the counsel of the assessee.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that before the ld. AO the assessee has failed to comply to various notices issued and thus, the ld. AO could not decide the issue based upon the evidences/merit. Before the ld. CIT (A) also the ld. CIT (A) rejected the application of the assessee in respect of additional evidences and thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be well served if the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. JAO with a direction to decide the same denovo, after taking into account all the evidences, which the assessee may file before the ld. JAO. Needless to say, that the assessee would be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the same.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →