JAIAMBAY COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 60(2), KOLKATA

ITA 2623/KOL/2024

AI Insights

Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had dismissed their appeal as barred by limitation. The original assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was contested in subsequent appeals. The primary contention was the calculation of the appeal filing period, where the assessee argued that the appeal was filed within time based on the receipt date of the assessment order, not the order date itself. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's position, noting that the CIT(A) had not considered the correct starting point for the limitation period, leading to an erroneous dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633301 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप क ुमार चौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. I.T.O., Ward-6(2), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCJ2414Q Appearances: Assessee represented by : Anil Kochar, Adv. Department represented by : Abhijit Adhikari, JCIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 24-Apr-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-June-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 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 2012-13 dated 21.10.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019. Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee is in the appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the appeal of the appellant as inadmissible because of delay of 44 days in presenting the appeal on alleged grounds. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appeal preferred on 09.06.2015 was out of time without properly appreciating the fact that the order appealed against was received only on 02.06.2015. 4. For that in Form No.35 the appellant having clearly stated that the order against which the appeal has been preferred was received on 02.06.2015, the appeal submitted on 09.06.2015 was well within time prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have treated the appeal as inadmissible and accordingly erred in passing order for dismal of the appeal. 6. For that further grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be taken at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the e-return on 30.9.2022 declaring total income at Rs.38,760/- and the same was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices were issued to the assessee which were complied with and details/submissions/explanations as called for during the course of hearing were furnished. The Assessing Officer, after considering the details furnished, framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs.1,39,24,749/- after making various additions/disallowances. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld CIT(A) in which several grounds of appeal were taken. The appeal was delayed by 44 days and in response to three notices issued by the ld CIT(A), the assessee filed written submission. In response to the notice dated Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 25.07.2022, submissions were filed on 3.8.2022, which have been reproduced in the order of Ld. CIT(A) from pages 5 to 8. The Ld. CIT(A), however, required the assessee to furnish valid reasons for filing the delayed appeal which was barred by 44 days. It is stated in the appeal order that the assessee had not furnished any submissions for the cause of delay in filing the appeal nor any documentary proof for condoning the delay was filed. The Ld. CIT (A), after going through various judicial pronouncements, has held that there was no sufficient cause for the delay and the delay was not condoned; therefore, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Aggrieved with the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. Ground Nos.1 and 6 are general in nature and do not require any separate adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 related to the Ld. CIT(A) not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal on account of delay. It was the submission before us by the Ld. AR that the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) on 25.03.2015 but the same was received on 02.06.2015 and the appeal was filed on 09.06.2015 and thus there was no delay. In Form No.35 relating to the appeal, the date of order u/s 143(3) of the Act is mentioned as 25.03.2015 but the date of receipt of the order is mentioned as 02.06.2015. It was the submission that the order was received physically and not online. The appeal filed on 09.06.2015 was, therefore, filed in time; however, the Ld. CIT(A) has calculated the delay from the date of the order and has dismissed the appeal without considering the fact that the limitation starts from the Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. date of receipt of the order and, therefore, the appeal was filed in time. It is also noted that the assessee had also submitted the written submission thereby implying that the appeal of the assessee was admitted as no show cause notice for the delay in filing of appeal appears to have been issued to the assessee prior to filing of the written submission nor any such mention is made in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). In the statement of facts; the assessee has stated that the audited statement of account and other details were submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer in response to his notice. It was submitted before us that in response to the letter dated 25.09.2024 of the ld CIT(A) requiring the assessee to furnish the reasons for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal along with requisite evidence/proof and also to state the reasons for the delay justifying the sufficient cause, the assessee filed the letter for which the e-proceedings response acknowledgement has also been filed. However, there is no mention of any letter dated 25.09.2024 being issued by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 5 of the appeal order and on the other hand in the e-proceedings acknowledgement receipt, there is a mention of the notice issued date as 04/10/2024. It is also observed that while filing the appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, a copy of the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) dated 28.12.2019 has been enclosed and the copy of the order u/s 143(3) of the Act has not been enclosed, therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to what were the additions made. It appears that some confusion had arisen because the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on 25.02.2015 and subsequently the reassessment proceedings were initiated and the order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 was passed (which is claimed to be received on 31/12/2019 and the appeal against which has been filed on 31/01/2020 with a delay of one day as against the Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. due date for filing the same being 30/01/2020) and so is mentioned in the letter filed in the course of the appeal before us. The Ld. CIT(A) on the other hand has reproduced the letter dated 04/10/2024 on page 9 of the appeal order for filing the reply on or before 11/10/2024 for the reasons and evidences for the delay and to state how the reasons can fit into “sufficient cause” and has also mentioned that the assessee has not furnished any submission for the cause of delay in filing the appeal. Thus, it is apparent that the formal letter for condoning the delay was filed not for the appeal against the order u/s 143(3) but against the order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. The assessee contends that it had received the order on 02.06.2015 and the appeal was filed on 09.06.2015, thus, there is no delay as regards the appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. We have considered the submissions made. 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. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee on merit, by passing a speaking order. Since the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay treating the same to be of 44 days while the assessee states that there was no delay and the appeal was filed in time when calculated from the date of receipt of the order; the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the appeal is remanded back to his file to decide the same as apparently there is no delay and the dismissal of the appeal on account of delay alone was erroneous, more so when the assessee had filed the reply, thereby implying that the appeal was already admitted. The assessee shall file necessary evidence in support of the claim that there was no delay in filing the appeal and thereafter, the appeal should be decided on merits of the case. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 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 and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. Hence, Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. . Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 09.06.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) Page | 7 I.T.A. No.: 2623/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Jaiambay Commercial Pvt. Ltd., 68, Canning Street,, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. 2. I.T.O., Ward-6(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata "