2025 (9) TMI 956

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal, "SMC" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 960/Kol/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following questions of law for consideration : (i) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable, treating the order dated 29.04.2022 issued by the Ld. ITO, Ward 2(1), Exemption, Durgapur as related to condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, when it is a fact that the subject captioned therein as 'Condonation under section 119(2)(b)-Order' was merely a forwarding note or information parted that the Ld. CIT(E) (vide its order dated 03.02.2022) has already condoned such delay in filing of Form 10B, as such when the condonation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal did not permit mentioning of two dates 06.08.2019 and 29.04.2022 simultaneously, though the rectification order dated 06.08.2019 and execution order dated 29.04.2022 were both challenged ? (v) Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee can challenge one appeal against one order, when it is a fact that the real challenge was the rectification order u/s 154 dated 06.08.2019 along with the consequential order dated 29.04.2022 which is simply a request to pay the outstanding demand but the same has nothing to do with the condonation part, which was already granted and thereby concluded? 2. We have heard Mr. Sumit Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Amit Sharma, learned s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was preferred against the rectification order dated 6.8.2019 under Section 154 of the Act which was mistakenly mentioned in the Grounds of Appeal as 6.8.2022 and therefore the appeal was maintainable. Furthermore, even in the order dated 29.4.2022, the Income Tax Officer (Exemption) had issued a direction to pay the outstanding demand of Rs. 4,23,284/- and therefore, the assessee challenged the same in its entirety. Further, it was contended that the Appellate authority ought to have considered that the rectification order passed under Section 154 of the Act wherein the voluntary contribution other than corpus was computed at par for Rs. 10,59,166/-, wherefrom if the rate of bank interest Rs. 2,325/- and depreciation Rs. 43,320/- are ded....