Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retired employee, failed to file his income tax return for AY 2019-20. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 and made additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) after a significant delay, citing non-receipt of notices due to an old email ID being used by a former consultant. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay, leading to the present appeals.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to issues with communication and the old email ID. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee, and whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
Sections Cited
10, 144, 144B, 147, 148, 156, 250, 270A, 271AAC(1), 69B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER BENCH: These three appeals filed by the assessee are against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 11.11.2025. Since the appeals are connected and related to the same assessee, they were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 2987/KOL/2025:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay petition filed along with the Memo of Appeal which was based on wrong interpretation of the facts of service of the order, without affording any opportunity of explaining the delay and thereby not admitting the Appeal against the ex-parte Assessment raising a huge Demand of Rs.89,99,075/- which is against the norms of Natural Justice. ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay submitted along with the Memo of Appeal, which was based on wrong interpretation of the facts of service /communication of the Order dated 10.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and the said Order was sent through the mail ID which belongs to somebody else, who had submitted the Appellant's Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 by using his own mail ID about 9/10 years ago from Himachal Pradesh and with whom there is no connection with the Appellant since then. As such there was no information to the Appellant about service of the abovementioned ex-parte Assessment Order till 05.02.2025 on which date the Appellant had received one letter dated 28.01.2025 from Juri ictional A.O. for payment of outstanding Demands under various sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant.
That the order passed u/s.250 of the Act by the Ld. C.I.T. (A) is bad in law.
That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds or alter, amend or modify the grounds already taken before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.” II. ITA No. 2988/KOL/2025:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay petition filed along with the Memo of Appeal which was based on wrong interpretation of the facts of service of the order, without affording any opportunity of explaining the delay and thereby not admitting the Appeal against levy of Penalty of Rs.7,05,530/- u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act which is against the norms of Natural Justice.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay submitted along with the Memo of Appeal, which was based on wrong interpretation of the facts of service /communication of the Order dated 23.08.2024 passed u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act and the said Order was sent through the mail ID which belongs to somebody else, who had submitted the Appellant's Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 by using his own mail ID about 9/10 years ago from Himachal Pradesh and with whom there is no connection with the Appellant since then. As such there was no information to the Appellant about service of the abovementioned Penalty Order till 05.02.2025 on which date the Appellant had received one letter dated 28.01.2025 from Juri ictional A.O. for payment of outstanding Demands under various sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant.
That the order passed u/s.250 of the Act by the Ld. C.I.T. (A) is bad in law.
That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds or alter, amend or modify the grounds already taken before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.” III. ITA No. 2989/KOL/2025:
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay petition filed along with the Memo of Appeal which was based on wrong interpretation of the facts of service of the order, without affording any opportunity of explaining the delay and thereby not admitting the Appeal against levy of Penalty of Rs.4,91,234/- u/s.270A of the Act which is against the norms of Natural Justice.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay submitted along with the Memo of Appeal, which was based on wrong interpretation of the facts of service /communication of the Order dated 18.08.2024 passed u/s.270A of the Act and the said Order was sent through the mail ID which belongs to somebody else, who had submitted the Appellant's Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 by using his own mail ID about 9/10 years ago from Himachal Pradesh and with whom there is no connection with the Appellant since then. As such there was no information to the Appellant about service of the abovementioned Penalty Order till 05.02.2025 on which date the Appellant had received one letter dated 28.01.2025 from Juri ictional A.O. for payment of outstanding Demands under various sections for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay, which was based on wrong interpretation of date of service or communication of the Order and thereby in non-admitting the Appeal and denying justice to the Appellant.
That the order passed u/s.250 of the Act by the Ld. C.I.T. (A) is bad in law.
That the Appellant craves leave to submit further grounds or alter, amend or modify the grounds already taken before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.”
First, we shall take up ITA No. 2987/KOL/2025 for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of the ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das. Ministry of Defence as Subedar who had retired on superannuation and had received income from salary up to 31.05.2018 and pension from 01.06.2018 to 31.03.2019 totalling to ₹2,22,300/-. The assessee received FPA of ₹26,64,346/-, commuted value of pension of ₹17,95,739/-, Gratuity of ₹11,50,947/-, Group insurance of ₹5,25,654/- and Leave encashment of ₹6,69,180/- i.e. total of ₹68,05,866/- during the year under consideration on his retirement from the Government service which were claimed to be exempt u/s 10 of the Act. Further, short-term capital gain was earned from sale of mutual fund of ₹4,093/- and also the bank interest of ₹8,64,644/- and the gross total income worked out to ₹3,11,037/- and after claiming deduction, the same was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. It was stated in the statement of facts before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was under impression that he was not required to file the return of income. Since the assessee was a non-filer and information related to the income was available on the Insight portal under the category of ‘non-filer of return’, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Several opportunities were provided to the assessee but the assessee did not file the return of income even in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act issued on 31.03.2023. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Ld. AO added a sum of ₹70,79,999/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act, short-term capital gain at ₹2,25,001/- and the total income was assessed at ₹1,28,18,856/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted that there was a delay of more than 11 months and the explanation that the assessee due to lack of digital knowledge ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das. was not following the e-portal where all the notices of assessment was served and the consultant who was a part-time consultant to file the return had given his own mobile number and e-mail address while filing the return and whatever communication was sent by the Department afterwards were received by him. He was engaged for filing the return of income for AY 2014-15 and thereafter was not in touch with the assessee, hence, no return of income was filed thereafter. He filed the return of income for AY 2022-23 when the income became taxable. Therefore, any notice or order issued by the Department would have been received by the consultant but he did not inform the assessee including about the notices u/s 148, 142(1) of the Act, the assessment and the penalty orders. It was also stated that no hard copy of the assessment order, the demand notice u/s 156 of the Act were received. The assessment order was found in the e-filing portal and he engaged a new consultant informing about the assessment order passed for AY 2019-20 dated 10.02.2024. It was requested that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) could be condoned as the assessee could not make any representation before the Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings. This explanation was not found to be sufficient, reasonable and convincing to justify the delay of more than 11 months and relying upon the decision in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 347 (SC)/[2012] 207 Taxman 163 (SC)/[2012] 348 ITR 7 (SC)[24-02-2012] wherein it has been held that condonation of delay requires a robust justification and mere administrative lapses or negligence do not suffice the sufficient cause particularly when the delay is substantial, the request for condonation of delay was rejected and the appeal was held to be not adjudicated. ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das.
1 Similarly, the delay of five months in filing the appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act were also not condoned and the appeals was not adjudicated.
Aggrieved with the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR stated that actually there was no delay. No return was filed. The e-mail IDs mentioned were of a different person who was earlier engaged as a consultant in the year 2014 when the assessee was in the Central Government and was posted in Himachal Pradesh. The return was filed through some other person who had mentioned his own e-mail ID and mobile number. The Ld. AR stated that since the assessee’s income was not taxable, the delay ought to have been condoned as there was sufficient cause and requested that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO as the retirement benefits received were not taxable and the remaining income was below the taxable limit as in respect of capital gains even the indexed cost of acquisition was not allowed.
The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. The Bench was of the view that for the reasons mentioned that the assessee did not have income chargeable to tax in the subsequent year and only in AY 2014-15 the return was filed, the non-receipt of communication from the erstwhile tax consultant, there was sufficient cause for the delay which ought to have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal should have been adjudicated on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the order of the ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das. Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld. AO to grant one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass the assessment order afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2987/KOL/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Since the other two appeals in ITA Nos. 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 are relating to penalties for under reporting of income and for addition made u/s 69A of the Act which are related to the quantum addition and since the assessment order has been remanded to the Ld. AO to be done de novo, the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in both these appeals are also hereby set aside and both the issues are remanded to the Ld. AO to reframe the penalty orders after the assessment proceedings are done de novo and in case the facts so require.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th April, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 17.04.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No(s). 2987, 2988 & 2989/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Krishna Chandra Das. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Krishna Chandra Das, Ramkrishnanagar, Laskarpur, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, 743515. 2. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order