SHUVA CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BAMBOO VILLA, CALCUTTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1879/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 August 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice and liberal interpretation of sufficient cause. It also restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a hearing and the assessee to participate.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay due to various procedural and technical issues, including misunderstanding of appellate remedies and difficulties with the e-filing portal. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice necessitating a fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,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 Shuva Chakraborty, CA
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 No.1879/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Shuva Chakraborty Vs. Assessing Officer, CE-104, Flat No.3B, Street Bamboo Villa, Calcutta No.190 Near NBCC Building, Action Area 1, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156 [PAN: ANTPC4567A] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shuva Chakraborty, CA 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: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 139 days in filing the captioned Appeals. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal centre dated 30/10/2025 for the A.Y 2020-21.

ITA No.1879/Kol/2026 Shuva Chakraborty; A.Y: 2020-21 2. There is a delay of 200 Days in filing the said appcal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. That the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. 3. That the reasons for the delay are briefly stated hereinbelow: a. Misunderstanding regarding the appropriate appellate remedy/forum available to the Appellant. b. There was delay in obtaining professional consultation and legal advice. c. Technical difficulties and procedural issues on the income-tax e-filing portal/faceless appellate system. d. the appeal papers required substantial reconciliation and preparation in relation to the disputed addition of Rs. 9,45,469/- towards alleged unexplained interest income. e. Bona fide procedural mistakes while processing and pursuing the appellate remedy. 4. The Appellant was under a bona fide belief regarding the procedural requirements and limitation computation connected with filing of appeal. Due to the transition to faceless proceedings/e-filing mechanisms and related technical constraints, the statutory time limit inadvertently came to be crossed. 5. After the circumstances normalized and necessary documents were collected, immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any further delay. 6. That the appellant has a strong prima facie case on merits and substantial justice would suffer if the delay is not condoned. 7. That no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned, whereas irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the appellant if the appeal is dismissed on technical grounds. 8. That the delay occurred due to sufficient cause within the meaning of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the judicial principles laid down by various courts in the interest of substantial justice.” 3. The Ld. AR reiterating the averments made in the Application, sought for condoning the delay in filing the captioned Appeal.

ITA No.1879/Kol/2026 Shuva Chakraborty; A.Y: 2020-21 4. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the captioned Appealon delay in latches.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material. 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 of 139 days in filing the captioned Appeal.

6.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 06.02.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 06.02.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 30.10.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.10.2025, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee could not make proper compliance before the Assessing Officer and

ITA No.1879/Kol/2026 Shuva Chakraborty; A.Y: 2020-21 the Ld. CIT(A) in the first Appeal has not decided all the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the ex-parte order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

8.

The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not made proper compliance before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law, which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in the proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. Even before the Assessing Officer, Assessee has not made full compliance. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

ITA No.1879/Kol/2026 Shuva Chakraborty; A.Y: 2020-21 10. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is 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 →