KAMALA IRON FOUNDRY ,HOWRAH V. ITO, WARD 47(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 824/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kamala Iron Foundry against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The appeal was initially found to be delayed by 80 days; however, the delay was condoned based on a plausible affidavit provided by the assessee. The main contention of the assessee was that the order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and that the Assessing Officer had not considered the documents provided, such as bank statements and audited books of accounts, during the assessment proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a re-examination of the documents and directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the case, ensuring that the assessee is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712885 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUCHIKA SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “बी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.824/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kamala Iron Foundry 14, Gadahar Bhatta Road, Bhattanagar, Howrah-711204 Vs ITO, Ward-47(1), Kolkata PAN No. :AAEFK 8990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms. Ruchika Sharma, JCIT-Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.11.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 80 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 3. Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.824/KOL/2025 2 the assessee. The assessment order has also been passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 of the Act. Further the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has provided Bank Statements, Audited Books of Accounts, Ledger Copies and Cash Book to substantiate its claim, however, without considering the same the Assessing Officer made the addition. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld.AO, so that the assessee could be able to provide the details to substantiate its case for the year under consideration before the ld.AO. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that restoring the matter to the file of ld. AO would be, in fact, giving the assessee a second round which should not be granted. 5. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that the issue needs to be re-verified at the level of AO. A perusal of impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. A further perusal of the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer shows that the assessee was unable to furnish the details as required during the course of assessment proceedings. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a direction that the Assessing Officer shall verify the documents to be produced by the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee shall Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.824/KOL/2025 3 be given sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. Assessing Officer in the readjudication proceedings, positively. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2025. Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 29/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "