MANALI MAKARAND GHANGREKAR,PASCHIM MEDINAPUR vs. INCOME TAX WARD 39(1) MIDNAPUR, MIDNAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1979/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 August 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issues on merit after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 based on information about an immovable property purchase. The assessee failed to respond to notices and show cause notices, leading to an addition of Rs. 13,43,750/- as unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the condonation of delay and deciding the appeal on merits without hearing the assessee. The issue of unexplained investment also needs to be decided on merit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,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 Respondent: Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 05.08.2026

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.1979/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Manali Makarand Ghangrekar Vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), B 69 IIT Campus, Kharagpur Midnapur Technology Kharagpur, Paschim West Bengal-721101 Medinapur, West Bengal-721302 [PAN: AYNPG8057G] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ambrish Mishra, DR Date of hearing : 03.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2026 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 11.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts on record are that, the assessee did not file return of income for the subject year. The Assessing Officer based on information through RMS, noted that the assessee purchased an immovable property for a value of Rs.56,43,750/- and hence initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee failed to file any return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. During the

ITA No.1979/KOL/2026 Manali Makarand Ghangrekar; A.Y: 2015-16 assessment proceedings, it was represented that she was a house wife, that the property was registered jointly in her name and of her husband, and was purchased out of the loan availed from IDBI and savings of her husband. The assessee had also furnished details for loan transaction to the tune of Rs.43,00,000/- The Assessing Officer considering the submissions issued show cause notice to treat the balance amount of Rs.13,43,750/- as unexplained. The assessee did not respond to the show cause notice. Hence, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13,43,750/- as unexplained investment vide assessment order dated 20.03.2024.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that there was delay in the filing of appeal and found that the reasons given for the delay are not satisfactory. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected condonation and proceeded to uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer on merits.

4.

Before us, the assessee remains unrepresented. The Ld. DR pointed out that the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) was 46 days. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have decided the appeal on merits in an ex-parte manner after rejecting the condonation petition for delay. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issues on merit after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Page | 2

ITA No.1979/KOL/2026 Manali Makarand Ghangrekar; A.Y: 2015-16 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT 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 →