PUROTECH MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD-9(3), KOLKATA

ITA 413/KOL/2025

AI Insights

Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had dismissed their appeals due to delay in filing. The tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and bonafide, citing precedents from the Supreme Court that emphasize deciding cases on merits rather than technicalities. The tribunal noted that the original assessment was made without proper compliance from the assessee, leading to a significant income being assessed. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, solely on the grounds of delay. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and the affidavit provided by the assessee, decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360658 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Įी राजेश क ुमार, लेखा सटèय एवं Įी Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCP 9983 B) Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 22.05.2025 For the assessee / Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate For the revenue / राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Ashutosh Kumar, Sr. D.R ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 20.09.2023 for AY 2014-15 to 2015-16 respectively. In all the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. appeals the issues are common and taken up together for disposal by taking a lead case in ITA No. 411/Kol/2025 for AY 2014-15. 2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 454 days, for this the assessee has filed condonation petition, which are as follows- 3 I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems 4 I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee for AY 2014-15 filed its return of income declaring total income Nil. The return has been processed u/s 143(1) wherein the refund of Rs. 68,130/- has been raised and issued. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were served on the issued calling for details, particulars mentioned therein but there was non-compliance on behalf of the assessee as a result of which the assessment order was passed by assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,95,36,820/-. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay in filing of the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee has preferred an appeal before us. 5. The Ld. A.R instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be restored into the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay as the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the matter on merit nor consider the submission of the assessee with regard to the delay that there was no notice served to the assessee. The Ld. A.R filed an Affidavit stating the reasons of delay before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Contrary to that the ld. D.R though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in restoring the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Upon hearing the submission of the Counsel of the respective parties, and find that the assessment was done behind the back of the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal. There was no adjudication on the merit of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) in its order has held that the assessee mentioned the date of service of order / notice or demand on 5 I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. 14.08.2018. However, it did not submit any documentary evidence in support of service of notice. Hence there is no plausible explanation accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. The Ld. A.R by filing a petition as discussed above in condonation petition has stated following paragraphs with regard to delay in filing of the appeal which is as follows: 8. In this context, we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]: \"... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant.\" In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: \"It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of 6 I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words \"sufficient cause\" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.” 9. Keeping in view the facts and the reason as stated in the affidavit as well as the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court we are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to place its case before the CIT(A). Affidavit of the assessee has explained the delay and according to us it is just and reasonable, accordingly delay is hereby condoned. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. The case of the assessee is hereby restored in the file of Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the case after hearing the assessee. The assessee is hereby directed to place its case before the Ld. CIT(A). In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय Dated: 22nd May, 2025 SM, Sr. PS 7 I.T.A. Nos. 411 to 413/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Purotech Merchants Pvt. Ltd., C/O, Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. PCIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail) True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "