MAHUA PAUL,SILIGURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 881/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 August 2026AY 2020-20215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 121 days, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bona fide. The tribunal further remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 121 days, claiming ignorance of the assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned. Whether the matter requires further verification at the Assessing Officer's level.

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, “C” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Nirupama DB, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rishikesh Pandey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.08.2026Pronounced: 13.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.881/KOL/2026 Assessment Year:2020-21

Mahua Paul Vs. Assessment Unit, ITO, Chanda Parka, Siliguri-734005 New Delhi-110001 [PAN: AFYPP8919A] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nirupama DB, AR Respondent by : Shri Rishikesh Pandey, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 10.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2026 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 18.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

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 04.03.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 04.03.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 18.02.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the

ITA No.881/Kol/2026 Mahua Paul; A.Y: 2020-21 Assessee on delay in latches.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.02.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

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 dismissed 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 121 days in filing the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeals of the Assessee on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 04.03.2025, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 121 days. Assessee in order to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing the appeal assigned following reasons.

“The Ld. AO has passed the assessment order online on 04th March 2025 and placed the assessment order at income tax portal against the PAN of the appellant and neither physical copy of the assessment order has been received by the appellant nor at her

ITA No.881/Kol/2026 Mahua Paul; A.Y: 2020-21 registered mail ID and hence the appellant was not aware of the passing of the assessment order on 04th March 2025 and a phone call has been received from the Department on 29th July 2025 for the payment of demand tax and the appellant had met with her lawyer and became aware about the passing of ex parte order by the Department on 4th March 2025 and without wasting any time the appellant has filed the appeal today but with a delay of 121 days and the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional on her part and there was no inaction on the part of the appellant and the appellant is not negligent in filing her appeal and she was not aware at all about the passing of assessment order online and hence the delay of 121 days may please be condoned and the appeal may please be heard on merit for the sake of justice”.

However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.

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 &

ITA No.881/Kol/2026 Mahua Paul; A.Y: 2020-21 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 121 days in filing the first Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, we observe that the Assessee has not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer and the issue involved in the present Appeal requires detailed verification at the stage of the Assessing Officer, therefore, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issuede-novo in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

7.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13.08.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.881/Kol/2026 Mahua Paul; A.Y: 2020-21 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 →