Durga Shaw Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Summary: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The appeal was barred by limitation by 37 days. During the hearing, the assessee’s counsel explained the reasons for the delay. The Departmental Representative did not object to condonation. After considering the rival contentions and material available on record, the ITAT Kolkata found the delay to be for bona fide and genuine reasons and accordingly condoned the delay.
On merits, the assessee submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee’s contentions or adjudicating the case on merits. The assessee sought an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) and to furnish evidence to establish the expenditure, including the source of expenditure incurred on the building. The Departmental Representative did not object to the request.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order passed by the NFAC had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits of the case. In the interest of justice and fairness to both parties, the ITAT considered it appropriate to restore the issue raised on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence concerning the expenditure, including the source of expenditure incurred on the building.
The Tribunal further clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal’s order was pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2025.
Appellant was represented by: Shri Shuvo Chakraborthy, AR
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 04.03.2025 for the AY 2016-17.
2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 37 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.
3. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee stated that the impugned order passed by learned CIT (A), Kolkata, without considering the contention of the assessee, by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on the merit of the case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that an opportunity may be given to present its case before the ld. CIT (A) and also to furnish the evidences before the ld. CIT (A) to prove the expenditure including the source of expenditure incurred by the assessee on building.
3.1. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.
3.2. We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that instant impugned order passed by NFAC was dismissed without looking into the merits of the case by simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee. We, therefore, feel it necessary and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised on merits to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for necessary adjudication after reasonable opportunity is provided to the assessee to furnish evidences before the ld. CIT (A) to prove the expenditure including the source of expenditure incurred by the assessee on building.It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2025.
