Calcutta High Court
M/S. Ranisati Capital Private Limited vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income … on 7 March, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
1
OD-11
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/23/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
M/s. RANISATI CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 7th March, 2025.
Appearance :
Ms. Alisha Das, Adv.
Mr. Samrat Das, Adv.
Ms. Elina Dey, Adv.
...for appellant.
Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
...for respondent.
The Court :- This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated August 23, 2024
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in
MA/6/Kol/2023 arising out of ITA/1529/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for
consideration :-
"a. Whether the said impugned order dated August 23, 2024 passed by the
learned Tribunal is wrongful, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law ?
b. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in not recalling the ex-parte
order passed by the Ld. Tribunal on August 23, 2024 when there was a
reasonable cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing of the appeal ?
2
c. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal
was justified in dismissing the miscellaneous application when your appellant
has appeared on several occasions on the dates of hearing of the appeal,
however, on most of the hearing dates, the bench was not in session ?"
Heard learned advocates on either side.
The appellant/assessee had filed a miscellaneous application before the learned
tribunal in MA/6/Kol/2023 to recall the ex parte order passed by the tribunal dated
15.12.2023 in ITA/1529/KOL/2019. The learned tribunal held that at the time when
the miscellaneous application was heard none was present on behalf of the assessee
and that the assessee also did not participate in the assessment proceeding resulting
in a best of judgment assessment and that the assessee did not prosecute its appeal
before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] which was decided ex parte.
With this reasoning, the learned tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application.
Aggrieved by such order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
After we have elaborately heard the learned advocate for the appellant/assessee
as well as the learned senior standing counsel for the respondent/department, we find
that the learned tribunal had committed a factual mistake in holding that the assessee
did not appear before the CIT(A) when the fact remains that the assessee had
appeared before the appellate authority and contested the proceeding on merits.
With regard to the prayer made in M.A. No. 6/Kol/2023 was to set aside the
order passed by the Tribunal dated 15th December, 2022 by which the Tribunal
dismissed the assessee's appeal since the assessee was not represented. What is
required to be seen is that whether the conduct of the assessee was so bad that the
assessee would not be entitled for any discretionary remedy.
3
We note that when the appeal was filed before the Tribunal during the year
2023, 13.6.2023 was the first date of hearing fixed for the appeal and the assessee
was represented. Subsequently the case was adjourned to 21.7.2023. However, the
assessee was not represented. The case was further adjourned to 1.9.2023, the
assessee was represented and subsequently, on 22.9.2023 the case was adjourned
since the Bench of the learned Tribunal was not functioning. Subsequently, the case
was listed on 16.2.2023 and adjourned at the assessee's authorized representative. On
16.2.2023 the Bench of the Tribunal did not function and the hearing was adjourned.
Similar was the reason for adjournment on 23.2.2024 and 1.3.2024. On 22.3.2024 the
case was adjourned and fixed for hearing on 26.4.2024. On 26.4.2024, on account of
non-availability of the Hon'ble Member of the Tribunal, the case was adjourned till
21.6.2024 and it appears to have been listed on 23.8.2024, on which date the
Miscellaneous application was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the
assessee. The chain of events clearly shows that the assessee had been diligently
prosecuting the matter and cannot be held to have slept over their rights. As already
noted, the assessee had appeared before the CIT(A). However, the learned Tribunal
had committed a factual mistake in observing that the assessee did not appear before
the Appellate Authority.
We have gone through the order passed by the Appellate Authority and we find
that the Appellate Authority has not discussed any facts nor dealt with the grounds
which have been raised by the assessee, though the grounds have been extracted in
the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 23.5.2019 in paragraph 2.
Thereafter, the Appellate Authority referred to the various decisions and ultimately,
the conclusion is in paragraph 13 holding that the assessee had not proved the three
ingredients required under Section 68 of the Act.
4
We are of the view that there is no discussion on facts despite the assessee
having appeared before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the
assessee should not be left remediless and should be given an opportunity to put forth
their case on merits. Since the assessment proceedings were based on judgment
assessment, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a
fresh consideration.
For the above reasons, the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the order
passed by the Appellate Authority and the assessment order are set aside and the
assessment is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall complete the
assessment after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the authorized
representative of the assessee. The assessee is not entitled to seek for any
adjournment and shall appear before the Assessing Officer either in person or through
their authorized representative on the date and time as fixed by the Assessing Officer.
It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and it will
be well open to the assessee to raise all factual and legal grounds before the Assessing
Officer.
The appeal is allowed for the above reasons.
Consequently, the substantial questions of law are left open.
The stay application IA No: GA/1/2025 is disposed of.
.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
pkd/S.Das/SN/sm