ALLIED BESCO (JV),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1114/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 December 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) and the assessment order was passed ex-parte by the AO. The assessee contended that notices were not properly served or accessible, leading to their inability to attend proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified due to non-receipt or inaccessibility of notices, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(3A)(3B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta &, Ms. Rajashree Dutta, Ars
For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Hearing: 11.12.2024Pronounced: 16.12.2024

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 20.12.2023 for the AY 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee and assessee moved a condonation petition along with the evidences as regards illness of authorized signatory due to which the appeal could not be field within the stipulated time. We note that this is a case of AOP (Association of Person) and the assessee has explained the delay of each and every day of delay in filing the appeal. We consider the reasons to be

3.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the orders have been framed by the authorities below, ex-parte when the assessee failed to respond on various dates fixed for hearing. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed u/s 144 read with section 143(3A)(3B) of the Act vide order dated 08.04.2021 by the AO. Similarly, the appellate order was passed by the ld. CIT (A) on 20.12.2023, dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. The ld. AR submitted that the proceedings before both the authorities could not be attended as the notices were not served physically but on ITBA portal and also sent through email to the assessee with which the assessee was not conversant with. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not access the notices issued by the lower authorities and therefore, the proceedings remained unattended. The ld. AR therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play the assessee may kindly be allowed one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. AO by restoring this appeal to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer.

4.

On the other hand, the ld. DR left the issue at the wisdom of the Bench.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment in this case was framed during Covid period and hence , the assessee could not respond the various notices issued during the assessment proceedings. Similarly, before he ld. CIT (A) also the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte, in limine when the assessee was failed to appear on various dates due to non-accessibility of the

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →