PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1744/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 August 2026AY 2012-20135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), subject to a deposit to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The primary issue was the condonation of delay and the subsequent adjudication of the appeals on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 20.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1743 to 1745/KOL/2026 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 2013-14 Pawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/o Subhas Agarwal & Associates, Adovcates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [PAN: ASGPA7150B] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Subash Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 18.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 31.03.2026, 02.04.2026 & 01.04.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessment Orders came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 11.12.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12, on 15.11.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 and on 25.10.2021 for A.Y. 2013-14by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the

ITA Nos.1743 to 1745/Kol/2026 Pawan Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys.: 2011-12 to 2013-14 Assessment Orders dated 11.12.2018, 15.11.2019 and 25.10.2021, Assessee preferred three Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 31.03.2026, 02.04.2026 & 01.04.2026, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31.03.2026, 02.04.2026 & 01.04.2026, Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay and dismissing the first Appeals, thus, sought for allowing the captioned Appeals.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 2624, 2285 & 1575 days in filing the Appeals for A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first Appeals of the Assessee on delay in latches. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeals.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the three Assessment Orders, Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2624, 2285 & 1575 days respectively. The Assessee in order to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing the appeal assigned following reasons.

ITA Nos.1743 to 1745/Kol/2026 Pawan Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys.: 2011-12 to 2013-14 “3. That Sir, the appellant being a senior citizen of age 70 years (as on date) could not manage to gather the resources required for submission against the notices issued in the course of assessment proceedings in the instant matter and make the timely submissions as and when required. 4. That Sir, the appellant was an aged man and lives alone at this advanced stage of life has faced significant difficulty in managing complex legal and financial matters. The Appellant's previous accountant, who was entrusted with the maintenance of books and tax compliances, abruptly abandoned his services and ceased all communication. Consequently, the Appellant remained unaware of the receipt of several statutory notices and was oblivious to the specific timelines required for filing a formal appeal. 5. That the appellant was an bonafide Old Settler of Sikkim, and a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 59 of 2013 titled Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India was filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking equal income-tax exemption for all similarity placed residents of Sikkim. The matter remained under dispute for a considerable period and was finally decided in favour of the petitioners by a judgment delivered in January 2023. As a result, the appellant was under the bona fide belief that, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed a favourable order, the learned Income Tax Officer would suo motu give effect to the said Judgment and grant the applicable exemption, however, the same was not done. 6. That Sir, till the year 2025, the Appellant was already in receipt of multiple orders for various assessment years, against which appeal was pending to be filed and due to which there was a lot of documentation work pending to be done on the appellant's end. 7. Thus, for reasons beyond control the petitioner could not file the application well within time. Your goodself may consider that there was a sufficient cause for the delay, and hence grant us an opportunity to file appeal. 8. That your petitioner is filing an appeal petition along with this application of condonation of delay. 9. In the circumstances aforesaid, it would cause undue hardship and irreparable loss to your petitioner if the condonation is not accepted. 10. This application is made bonafide and in the interest of justice. In the circumstances aforesaid, your petitioner most humbly prays for. a) Accepting the Appeal Petition being filed along with this application for condonation of delay. Page | 3

ITA Nos.1743 to 1745/Kol/2026 Pawan Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys.: 2011-12 to 2013-14 b) Such further or other order / orders be made and/or direction be given as would afford complete relief to the petitioner.” However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the above Appeals.

6.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay in filing the first Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) subject to the Assessee depositing Rs.6,000/- in total to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and further we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

ITA Nos.1743 to 1745/Kol/2026 Pawan Kumar Agarwal; A.Ys.: 2011-12 to 2013-14 7. In the result, all three Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

(MANISH BHOI) DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →