AMIT MEHTA,KOLKATA V. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32, , KOLKATA

ITA 2476/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amit Mehta, the appellant, contesting an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appellant's representative acknowledged a communication gap with the tax counsel, which led to non-compliance and absence of presentation of facts at the CIT(A) level. The Department's representative supported the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the efforts already expended by the department, decided to impose a cost on the appellant and remand the case for a fresh assessment by the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705827 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2476/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year 2016-17) Amit Mehta, 2/10, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700020 [PAN: AHCPM8306L] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Sir William Jones Sarani, Middleton Row, Park Street area, Kolkata - 700071 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Miraj D Shah, AR Department represented by : Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.07.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. This appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated 07.10.2024. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AR fairly pointed out that the assessee could not make any presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the fact that there was some communication gap between the assessee and his tax counsel. The Ld. AR prayed that they may be given an opportunity to present the facts before either the Ld. CIT(A), or the Ld. AO since even at the level of the Ld. AO the compliance could not be made to the fullest extent possible. 2 ITA No. 2476/Kol/2024 Amit Mehta 1.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 2. We have considered the preliminary submissions of the Ld. AR, regarding non-attendance before the Ld. CIT(A). We have gone through the orders of authorities below and have also heard the Ld. DR. It is evident from a reading of the order that the Ld. CIT(A) was forced to pass an exparte order since there was no compliance by the assessee. We also find that even before the Ld. AO there has been intermittent compliance at best. Since considerable time and effort has been expended by the department in passing the impugned order and even the order of Ld. AO, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee for wasting time of the department. This cost has to be paid to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta, 700001, within sixty days of receipt of this order by the assessee. With this direction, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The assessee would do well to present the facts before the Ld. AO on being given the opportunity to do so. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03.07.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (George Mathan) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03.07.2025 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Amit Mehta 2. DCIT, Circle -32, Kolkata 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. CIT(DR) 3 ITA No. 2476/Kol/2024 Amit Mehta //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "