M/S CAPRICORN INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-10(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 682/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)3 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, finding the reasons to be sufficient and bonafide. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 170 days, citing the sudden resignation of their ex-director who controlled all financial and taxation documents. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Roy, AR
For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kanaujia, DR
Hearing: 15.01.2025Pronounced: 31.01.2025

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 17.1.2022 for the AY 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, we note that there is a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee by 170 days for which condonation petition along with affidavit was filed, explaining the reasons for delay. It was stated in the affidavit that the ex-director of the assessee company Shri Jadab Naiya, who was looking after the finance and taxation matters had resigned all of sudden with effect from 29.09.2021 with all documents were under his control. It was only after the fact was noticed from the portal qua the assessee’s appeal having been dismissed, ex-parte and

3.

The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the delay is not properly explained.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the reasons for delay appear to be sufficient and bonafide and accordingly, the delay is condoned.

5.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, has been decided the matter as ex-parte when the assessee failed to appear on the various dates allowed by the ld. CIT (A), resulting into dismissal of the appeal of the assessee in limine. The ld. AR therefore, prayed that ends of justice could be met if the case of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

The ld. DR on the other fairly left the issue to the wisdom of the Bench, however, admitted that proceeding was ex-parte before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT (A) in all the six hearings allowed during the appellate proceedings by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). According to the assessee the notices were sent through email and therefore, the same were not accessed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are restoring this appeal to the

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →