BEDPRAKASH CHAURASIYA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2112/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 August 2026AY 2014-20155 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the assessment and restored the file to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment, subject to a deposit by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay, citing non-receipt of the order from their erstwhile representative. The case involves an addition of cash deposits to income, where the assessee claims the amount was miscalculated and withdrawals were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessment, made ex-parte, requires a fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

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 Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Mana Mondal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.08.2026Pronounced: 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.2112/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Bed Prakash Chaurasiya Vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), Kolkata Khalore, Bagnam, Howrah West Bengal-711303 [PAN: ALCPC1952C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Mana Mondal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2026 O R D E R PER GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 24.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

There is a delay of 246 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under:-

“4. That the impugned appellate order dated 24.07.2025 was passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the faceless mode and was uploaded on the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department.

ITA No.2112/KOL/2026 Bedprakash Chaurasiya; A.Y: 2014-15 The intimation of passing of the said order was electronically forwarded to the e-mail address taxavemanik15@rediffmail.com, which is the e- mail address of the erstwhile authorised representative of the Appellant who was conducting the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The said e-mail address does not belong to the Appellant and was never accessed by the Appellant. 5. That the Appellant, who is a small assessee, was reposing complete trust and confidence in his erstwhile authorised representative for due intimation of all communications, notices and orders received in connection with the appellate proceedings. It was the bounden duty of the said authorised representative to forward the order to the Appellant promptly upon its receipt. However, for reasons best known to the said authorised representative, the order so received was not communicated to the Appellant, nor was the Appellant ever apprised of the disposal of his appeal.” 3. The Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present appeal on delay in latches.

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR 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 246 days in filing the present Appeal.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee is an individual filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15, declaring total Page | 2

ITA No.2112/KOL/2026 Bedprakash Chaurasiya; A.Y: 2014-15 income of Rs.2,12,760/-. Based on the information that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.57,43,251/- in his bank account, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2018. The Assessee did not file any return in response to the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. There was no compliance to the other notices issued. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte by adding an amount of Rs.57,43,251/- to the total income of the assessee vide its order dated 26.11.2018.

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in regard to the impugned addition made in the assessment. However, the assessee did not participate in the remand proceedings and as a result, the Assessing Officer had reiterated the addition made in the assessment. Based on the same, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), this appeal is preferred before us.

7.

The Ld. AR argued that the assessee could not appear during the remand proceedings for the reasons that the e-mail communication was sent to the erstwhile representative and that the assessee was not aware of the same. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer & Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the cash deposit aggregated to Rs.49,44,201/- and not Rs.57,43,251/- and also failed to consider the Page | 3

ITA No.2112/KOL/2026 Bedprakash Chaurasiya; A.Y: 2014-15 withdrawals in the account. It was further submitted that the impugned assessment has been framed in an ex-parte manner both at the level of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and hence requested that the matter may be set aside to the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh.

8.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has already remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer and there was total non-compliance made by the assessee. The Ld. DR also represented that the Ld. CIT(A) has given sufficient opportunity which was not filed by the assessee. Hence, requested to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

9.

We have considered the rival submissions. It is seen that the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, remand proceedings and also the matter has been decided ex-parte. Considering that the Department has sent various notices and afforded sufficient opportunities, and the reasons given by the assessee for non-compliance and the facts of the case, we consider it appropriate to set aside the assessment & restore the file to the Assessing Officer for fresh de novo assessment, subject to the Assessee depositing Rs.5,000/- in total to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before Page | 4

ITA No.2112/KOL/2026 Bedprakash Chaurasiya; A.Y: 2014-15 passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to cooperate in furnishing the necessary documents/ details before the Assessing Officer.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT 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 ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →