Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra
order : June 24 , 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
Assessing Officer, whereas, is against the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is consequential to the quantum additions contested by the assessee in appeal No.72/Ko/2024. We first take quantum appeal in ITA No.72/Kol/2024. &73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the 2. assessee has brought to our attention that the first appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) being barred by limitation. The ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect has brought our attention to the submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, it has been pleaded as under:
The appellant would like to state that the Ld. Assessing Officer has passed the present assessment order in the case of the company by alleging the PAN number of the company to be AAACU5211A and the address of the company to be 172/1, CIT Scheme, VII-M, Ultadanga, Kolkata - 700054, whereas the address of the company was changed to 24, M.B. Road, Birati, Kolkata - 700051 long ago by filing the applicable Form No. 18 with the Registry of the Companies in the year 2003 and the company had been consistently filing its return of income at the said new address with PAN No. being AAACU5051E and it is not known that how the Ld. Assessing Officer assumed the address of the company and PAN Number of the company which he has written in the assessment order which has passed by him. Moreover, in the assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee company never filed any return of income till date. This assumption of the Ld. Assessing Officer is completely erroneous assumption, since the original assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by DCIT, Circle-1(2), Kolkata(hereinafter referred to as the jurisdictional Assessing officer) vide order dated November 27, 2015 where the said jurisdictional AO correctly recorded the address and PAN number of the company and the order was passed in accordance with the law and the company has been regularly assessed with the said jurisdictional Assessing Officer who has jurisdiction over the company and it is not understood how the present Assessing Officer, i.e., ITO, Ward 6(3), Kolkata, assumed the jurisdiction over the appellant. The Income Tax Officer does not allow two officers to exercise parallel Jurisdiction over an assessee and even if it is allowed there has been no such order allowing parallel jurisdiction and as such the present proceedings initiated by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Kolkata by issuing notices from his email ID cannot be said to be the communication from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
2.1 The ld. Counsel in this respect has referred to page 67 of the paper-book, which is a copy of assessment order passed in the case of &73/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Unitech Fabricators & Engineers Pvt. Ltd the assessee, wherein, the PAN number of the assessee has been mentioned as AAACU5051E and the address of the assessee has been mentioned as 24, M B Road, Birati, Kolkata-700051. The ld. Counsel has referred Form No.35 and other documents in relation to the appeal filed before the CIT(A), wherein, the same address and PAN number has been mentioned. The assessee has submitted that neither any notice in relation to during the assessment proceedings nor the assessment order was served upon the assessee through physical mode at correct address. That the email sent by the Assessing Officer could not be noticed as the same was lying in the junk mail folder. A separate application before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay was also filed explaining the aforesaid reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to the aforesaid reasons.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the order of the CIT(A).
Considering the rival submissions, in our view, the assessee has explained that due to the aforesaid reasonable cause and circumstances, the assessee could not file appeal before the CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Considering the above submissions of the assessee which are corroborated with the relevant documents, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter is accordingly restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide the appeal accordingly irrespective of any delay in filing the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.