SOMA DAS,EAST MIDNAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 27(3), HALDIA, HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1992/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 August 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Soma Das, did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer, upon noticing discrepancies in property purchases, issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee's explanation for the source of funds for property purchase was deemed insufficient, leading to an addition of Rs. 11,15,510/- under Section 69.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to allow adjudication on merits. The secondary issue involved the unexplained investment in property.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,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 Sanu Agarwal, AR
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.1992/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Soma Das Vs. ITO, Ward-27(3), Haldia Guluriya, Mecheda, Golaghat, East Midnapur West Bengal-721137 [PAN: BVKPD3515P] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sanu Agarwal, AR 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 26.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts on record are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return for the subject year. The Assessing Officer based on information noted that the assessee had purchased two items of property and whose stamp duty valuation was higher than the documented consideration and hence took the view that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s

ITA No.1992/KOL/2026 Soma Das; A.Y: 2017-18 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee did not file any return in response to the said notice. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that only one property was purchased during the year jointly with her husband, with loan availed from LIC, previous savings and loans from relatives. After considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion, that amount to the tune of Rs.11,15,510/- was not explained and added the same u/s 69 of the Act vide his order dated 19-03-2022.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 239 days. It was submitted in the Form-35, that there was genuine hardship faced by the assessee and the assessee was not accustomed to Income tax law, so it took time for her to understand and reply, and requested for condonation. The Ld. CIT (A) found that sufficient cause was not shown for the delay and therefore did not grant condonation and dismissed the appeal.

4.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a nursing professional, did not have sufficient knowledge in Income tax matters or professional support. It was represented that the delay was not intentional and pleaded that the delay may be condoned and that the matter may be adjudicated on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.1992/KOL/2026 Soma Das; A.Y: 2017-18 5. We have considered the submissions and find merit in the same. In the interest of justice, the delay before the CIT(A) is condoned, and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues on merits after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →