SK. KAMALUDDIN,SANTINIKETAN, BIRBHUM vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3, SURI, BIRBHUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1844/KOL/2026Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 September 2026AY 2020-20213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for a delay of 153 days. The assessee had substantial cash deposits in his bank accounts, which were treated as unexplained money during reassessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI DUVVURU R. L. REDDY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Debayan Patra, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 01.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R. L. REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1844/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: (2020-21) Sk. Kamaluddin, ACIT, Jeevan Sikha, Guru Pally (West), Vs. Circle - 3, P.O. Santiniketan, Dist – Birbhum Suri – 731235, West Bengal [PAN: AKVPS1684H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Debayan Patra, FCA Respondent by: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.09.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”],dated24.03.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay of 153 days and not admitting the appeal by overlooking the fact that delay was due to the bonafide and sufficient cause which was explained by the assessee.

ITA No.1844/Kol/2026/AY 2020-21 Sk. Kamaluddin vs. ACIT 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, ‘the Act’), dated10.07.2020, declaring total income of Rs.33,68,810/-. Based on information available with the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’), it is observed that the assessee had deposited substantial cash of Rs.3,21,20,000/- in his bank accounts maintained with State Bank of India (SBI). Various statutory and show cause notices u/s 142(1) and 148 of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, but there was only one compliance on 16.07.2024. The assessee is associated with the Life Insurance Corporationof India (LIC) as a Development Officer and a Senior Business Associate, who authorized by LIC to collect renewal premium through cash or cheque and to deposit the same through the LIC portal. Further, the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act dated 28.09.2022 was issued to verify the alleged mismatch aggregated cash deposits of Rs.3,21,20,000/- (i.e., Rs.2,26,00,000/-+ Rs.95,20,000/-). Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the AO completed re-assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 17.02.2025 by treating the entire cash deposits of Rs.3,21,20,000/- as ‘Unexplained money’ u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the assessment framed assessing the total income at Rs.3,54,88,810/-. 4. At the time of hearing, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits bynot condoning the delay of 153 days. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee prayed before the Bench that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to defend its case on merits before the ld. CIT(A) by restoring this appeal of the assessee.

ITA No.1844/Kol/2026/AY 2020-21 Sk. Kamaluddin vs. ACIT 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue did not have any objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A).

6.

We have heard rival submission and perused the materials available on record. We find that appellate order was passed as an ex-parte order without condoning the delay of 153 days in filing appeal.Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, the assessee deserves to be given one more opportunity to plead his case on merits before the ld. CIT(A).Accordingly,the delay of 153 days is condoned and the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A)with a direction to decide the appeal on merits by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 01/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Duvvuru R. L. Reddy) (Rajesh Kumar) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 01/09/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[�ȡ_�/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Deputy Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →