AMBICA CHARAN SINHA,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 42(1), MURSHIDABAD,, MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1820/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 July 2026AY 2021-20225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after a significant delay of 748 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's tax consultant failing to communicate the CIT(A)'s order and the subsequent illness of the assessee's counsel. The ITAT condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

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

For Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1820/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Ambica Charan Sinha Vs. ITO Ward-42(1), Gopalnagar, Srikantabati, Murshidabad Raghunathgunj, Murshidabad, West Bengal-742225 [PAN: AKIPS3697K] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 29.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 06.02.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

There is a delay of 748 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: -

“1. That, I filed my return of income for the Asst. Year 2021-22 on 23/03/2022 u/s.139(1), declaring total income of Rs.25,50,330/-.

ITA No.1820/Kol/2026 Ambica Charan Sinha; A.Y: 2021-22 2. That the return was processed u/s.143(1)(a) on 11/08/2022 by making addition for Rs.11,37,015/ under the head for the reason of inconsistency in the amount mentioned in the Tax Audit report with that of income reported/declared in the return of income. Subsequently, a rectification petition was filed which was disposed of on 06/09/2024 in the line of the original processing order dated 11/08/2022. 3. That on receipt of the order passed u/s.143(1)(a), an appeal was preferred before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 30/10/2022 and the Ld. Addl./jt. CIT(A), NFAC passed the order u/s.250 on 06/02/2024, dismissing the appeal so preferred. 4. That due to non receipt of any information about the passing of the order by the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) before August, 2025, before the prescribed period of time for filing of the appeal and even afterwards as the e-mail ID for communication provided was of my Tax Consultant in the Income Tax portal and he failed to communicate the information of passing of such appeal order to me before August, 2025. 5. That thereafter, due to my severe illness, I could not contact the Ld. Counsel Sri L. Ray before February, 2026 for handing over to him the necessary papers required for the filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. That afterwards, the papers and documents required for filing the appeal were handed over in the first week of February, 2026 to Sri L. Ray, FCA aged about 87 years Partner of Sen & Ray, Chartered Accountants for taking necessary steps in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. That later on, on being enquired about the filing of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was communicated to us that, due to old age related health problems Sri L. Ray, FCA could not attend the day to day professional activities and as such no further steps could be taken by him in filing of the appeal. 8. That, ultimately, in the last week of March, 2026 it came to our knowledge from the office of Sri L. Ray that no steps could be taken due to sickness of Sri L. Ray, FCA so far the filing of the appeal was concerned and as he has resumed his day to day professional activities now, the preparation of appeal filing has been taken up. 9. That after having resumed his day to day professional activities. Sri L. Ray FCA prepared the papers and arranged to fill up Form 36 for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata now. 10. That there was no mala-fide intension behind not filing the appeal within the prescribed time nor it could be filed immediately thereafter

ITA No.1820/Kol/2026 Ambica Charan Sinha; A.Y: 2021-22 due to the above stated reasons and in that case your petitioner assessee would be the sufferer by not having the benefit otherwise allowable as per the facts of the case under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The meritorious matter may kindly not be thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice may kindly not be defeated and the appeal may kindly be admitted by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 11. That the impugned delay in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, is for the good and sufficient bonafide reason and hence it is prayed that the delay in filing of the appeal may kindly be condoned.” 3. The Ld. AR reiterating the averments made in the Application, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

4.

DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present appeal on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material. 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 & 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 748 days in filing the Appeal.

ITA No.1820/Kol/2026 Ambica Charan Sinha; A.Y: 2021-22 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act came to be passed on 11.08.2022 by the CPC for A.Y. 2021-22 wherein the CPC, Bengaluru determining the total income at Rs.11,37,010/-. Aggrieved by the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 06.02.2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 06.02.2024, Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal.

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

8.

Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not

ITA No.1820/Kol/2026 Ambica Charan Sinha; A.Y: 2021-22 participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal by allowing the Ground No.1 in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

10.

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

Order pronounced on 30.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2026 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 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →