SHUBHAM GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1315/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 August 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without considering the merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order, but mistakenly mentioned an incorrect section (Section 154 instead of Section 147 r.w.s. 144). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on this technical ground without adjudicating on merits. The AO had made a significant addition based on the stamp duty value of property sold, as the assessee did not respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal on a technical mistake in the form without adjudicating on the merits of the case. Whether the assessment order passed by the AO was valid without proper opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 1315/KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2017-18 Shubham Ghosh....................................................................................................Appellant Flat – 4A, 282, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata- 700068 [PAN No. ARTPG2338M ] Vs. ITO, Ward 25(1)........................................................,..……………....……….Respondent Kolkata-700031 Appearances by: Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: July 16, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: August 17,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2026 of the Office Of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 154 of the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order by taking following grounds:-

1.

For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) on 12.02.2026 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

ITA No.1315/Kol/2026 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous without adjudicating the same on merits, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appeal was filed under a bona fide mistake by mentioning an incorrect section ie, order u/s 154 instead of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the dismissal on technical grounds is unjustified. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of deficiency notice without granting adequate and proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act without properly appreciating the facts and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 6. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adopting the stamp duty value of Rs. 72,97,990/- as full value of consideration in place of actual sale consideration of Rs. 22,53,198/ without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer as required under law. 7. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that capital gain arises only on transfer of a capital asset and not on purchase of property, and therefore the addition made is based on incorrect understanding of facts and law. 8. That the computation of capital gains made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is excessive, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.

3.

The Ld. AR in course of argument submitted that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO as the AO has passed an ex-parte order when assessee failed to respond to the notices. It has further been argued by the AR that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the basis of mistake occurred by

ITA No.1315/Kol/2026 the assessee in form No. 35 mentioned as- appeal against the order u/s 154 instead of order passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act.

Contrary to that Ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO.

4.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that in the present case assessee being an individual filed return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs. 440,430/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the reason that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold immovable property for Rs. 22,53,198/-. Assessee did not respond any of the notices issued, as a result of which, assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 65,46,924/-. The assessee preferred an appeal against said order but in form No. 35 he mistakenly mentioned the incorrect section i.e. order u/s 154 instead of assessment order passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal only on this ground without adjudication on the merit.

5.

Keeping in view the above facts and considering the submission made by the AR we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to the assessee to here.

As a result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.1315/Kol/2026

Kolkata, the 17th August , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated:. 17. 08.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.1315/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →