USHA CONSTRUCTION,NADIA V. ACIT, CIRCLE -41, NADIA

ITA 174/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Usha Construction, a partnership firm, which filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. Initially, the assessee declared a total income of Rs. 1,37,28,430, which underwent scrutiny and subsequent additions to the income were made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) and 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 36 days in filing, attributed to the illness of a partner, without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to condone the delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298597 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 263

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. No. 174/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Usha Construction (PAN: AABFU 6051 E) Vs. ACIT, Circle-41, Nadia Appellant / ) अपीलाथȸ ( Respondent / Ĥ×यथȸ Date of Hearing / सुनवाई कȧ Ǔतͬथ 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement/ आदेश उɮघोषणा कȧ Ǔतͬथ 16.04.2025 For the assessee / Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से Shri Rip Das, CA For the revenue / राजèव कȧ ओर से Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT Sr. D.R ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 26.11.2024 for AY 2016-17. 2 I.T.A. No. 174/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Usha Construction 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee being a partnership firm filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 declaring total income at Rs. 1,37,28,430/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued, in response to the same the assessee submitted details as called for by ACIT and ACIT passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) by adding an amount of Rs. 79,375/- and Rs. 17,44,587/- in the disclosed total income of the assessee. An order u/s 263 was passed by PCIT wherein the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) set aside with a direction to pass a afresh assessment order. In compliance to the same, the assessee has been noticed, and AO after considering the submission made by the assessee added Rs. 59,58,454/- in the determined total income of the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 the assessee filed an appeal before the PCIT wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay of only 36 days and no opportunity has been provided to the assessee to explain the delay. The prayer of the assessee is to restore the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay with a direction to pass afresh order. 5. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and find that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that there is no sufficient cause mentioned by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. Before us, the ld. Counsel filed medical certificate and submitted that due to illness of partner Shri Kalyan Kumar Singh of the assessee company, the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period. The ld. Counsel 3 I.T.A. No. 174/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Usha Construction submits that reassessment order was passed on 30.03.2022 and the appeal had been filed on 04.06.2024 and there is a delay of only 36 days. Keeping in view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and for the interest of justice, the appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The delay as caused is hereby condoned. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a afresh and reasoned order after giving an opportunity to the assessee to place its case. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 16th April, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश क ुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /Ĥदȣप क ुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सदèय Judicial Member/ÛयाǓयक सदèय Dated: 16th April, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Usha Construction, Lalpur, Natunpara, Chakdaha, Nadia-741222 2. Respondent – ACIT, Circle-41, Nadia 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 "