SAMIR DAS,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1314/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 August 2026AY 2018-20195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering the assessee's medical condition and lack of proper opportunity before the lower authorities, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 495 days due to medical reasons. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of non-deduction of TDS, outstanding statutory dues, bogus purchases, and disallowed a deduction under Section 80C. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh assessment due to lack of proper opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 43B,Section 69C,Section 80C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the 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 2018-19 dated 14.09.2024. 1.1 The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 495 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit along with a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that he was suffering from chronic kidney disease, did not access emails for a considerable period, and only became aware of the appellate order upon checking medical records in the last week of March, 2026. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory Samir Das. time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

"

1.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an exparte order.

2.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the order passed by the Ld. A.O u/s 147 r.w.s 144B is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

3.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.14,69,170/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of alleged non-deduction of TDS on salary, wages, labour charges and bonus.

4.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.1,82,556/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 43B towards EPF, ESI, CGST and SGST without appreciating that the same were duly paid before the due date of filing return and hence allowable as deduction.

5.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 14,54,799/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 69C wrongly treating purchases as bogus merely on the basis of third- party information.

6.

For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance of Rs. 28,697/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s 80C.

7.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing."

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 29.10.2018 declaring the total income at ₹5,99,910/-. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on receiving information that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus GST invoices, and in response thereof, the return of income was filed on 16.02.2023 declaring the total income at ₹5,99,910/-. The Assessing Officer Samir Das. (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') framed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 16.03.2023, determining the total income at ₹37,35,132/- by making additions of ₹14,69,170/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on various expenses claimed, ₹1,82,556/- u/s 43B of the Act for outstanding statutory dues, ₹14,54,799/- u/s 69C of the Act for bogus purchases, and a disallowance of ₹28,697/- for the deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance with multiple notices and observed that the assessee failed to furnish complete details or documentary evidence to substantiate any of the grounds against the additions. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that due to medical illness, proper compliance could not be made before the Ld. AO and requested that one more opportunity may be provided before AO to substantiate the claim as proper compliance could not be made before the Ld. CIT(A) as well. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to remand the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo.

Samir Das. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission he wants to make in support of his grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th August, 2026. [Yogesh Kumar US] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18.08.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

Samir Das. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Samir Das, C/o. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069. 2. ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata, 3, Govt. Place West, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

4.

CIT-

5.

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

6.

Guard File. //// By order

Deputy/

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →