HAYWIZZ HAVELOCK ISLAND RESORT,PORT BLAIR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), PORT BLAIR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2255/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 January 2026AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of compliance with the AO and CIT(A). Considering the ex-parte assessment and the need for fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a hotel business, failed to file its return of income for AY 2020-21. The AO estimated total income at ₹1,37,20,800 after issuing show cause notices for un-assessed income from sales, purchases, and rent, to which the assessee did not respond. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition and dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present its case due to ex-parte proceedings, and if the additions made by the lower authorities were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 148A(b),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 194I(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: 28-January-2026 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.08.2025.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was grossly unjustified in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex- parte.

2. (1) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the sum of Rs.96,20,800/- estimated by the lower authorities by way of business income by applying gross profit rate of 30% on the difference between the turnover and purchases appearing in GST return was excessive, arbitrary and unjustified and in that view of the matter, the 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR.

6.

We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made in Form No. 36 and the submissions of the Ld. DR. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that another opportunity may be provided to the assessee as the assessment order was ex parte and even before the appellate authority, there was no proper representation. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the reason for non-filing the return of income was stated to be the COVID-19 pandemic and the entire receipts had been added which were appearing in Form No. 26AS which were stated to be part of the turnover shown before GST authorities. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →