SHYAMNAGAR ANCHAL SKUS LTD.,,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 386/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 July 2026AY 2021-20226 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 943 days, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to delay with sufficient cause. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a delay of 943 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to this delay. The assessee attributed the delay to a misplaced order and subsequent steps to file the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether the appeals should be decided on merits despite the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 270A,Section 250,Section 246(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,

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

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Sen, AR
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 24.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.386 & 387/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2021-22

Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bankura Limited Gopalnagar, Shyamnagar, Bankura, West Bengal-722138 [PAN: AAGAS6760G] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri D.K. Sen, AR Respondent by : Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 10.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for the Assessment Year 2021-12.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.12.2022 by making certain addition. Further, pursuant to the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2022, an Order of penalty passed u/s 270A of the Act came to

ITA Nos.386 & 387/Kol/2026 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd.; A.Y: 2021-22 be passed on 16.06.2023. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2022 and Order of penalty dated 16.06.2023, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 10.12.2025, dismissed both the Appeals filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 10.12.2025, Assessee preferred the captioned appeals.

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 dismissing 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 943 days in filing the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal (quantum) of the Assessee in delay in latches, consequently the Appeal challenging the order of penalty was also dismissed, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2022, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a

ITA Nos.386 & 387/Kol/2026 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd.; A.Y: 2021-22 delay of 943 days. The Assessee gave the following reason for delay in filing of the appeal:

“Your petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 26/12/2022, passed by Learned A.O., NFAC passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I. Tax Act, 1961 for Asst. Yr. 2021-22, (Received on 26/12/2022 by Mail), has preferred an appeal under section 246(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961on 25/07/2025 before Ho'nble CIT(A), NFAC. The said appeal was required to be filed on or before 25th day of January, 2023 but appeal has been filed on 25/07/2025. Thus, there has been a delay of 943 days in filing this appeal. By virtue of this application, your petitioner is seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal on account of following grounds:-. 1. The order dt. 26/12/2022 was received in the Mail. The appellant handed over the said order to Shri Ritesh Agarwal, who is looking after Income Tax affairs of the Society, on 27/12/2022 for doing the needful for filing CIT(A). As ill luck would have been, the said order was misplaced in the office of Ritesh Agarwal. 2. In course of review of taxation matters in the office of Ritesh Agarwal, the order dated 26/12/2022 was traced on 20/07/2025 and due steps were taken for filing of the appeal through the Samity A/R Shri Kushal Khetan. 3. Therefore, contact was made with Shri Kushal Khetan, the Chartered Accountant for doing the needful in the matter. Mr. Khetan asked your petitioner to come to his chamber on 21/07/2025. Your petitioner states that Shri Khetan after having a thorough perusal of the assessment order dated 26-12-2022 advised to send copies of all the requisite documents. 4. Your petitioner states that the aforesaid sought documents required by Shri Khetan were provided to him immediately on 23/07/2025 and subsequently he drafted the Grounds of Appeal along with Form 35 on 25.07.2025 itself and the Appeal was filed on 25/07/2025. 5. Your petitioner further states that in any event and without prejudice to the above and in the aforesaid circumstances, your honour shall appreciate that said delay of 943 days, which occurred in filing the appeal is not on account of any negligence or gross inaction on the part of appellant. Your petitioner states that after having come to know that non-filing of appeal, your petitioner immediately took the requisite steps to ensure that further delay does not crop up and ensured the filing of

ITA Nos.386 & 387/Kol/2026 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd.; A.Y: 2021-22 the appeal at the earliest. Henceforth, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the delay was not based upon any mala-fide or intentional mistake of your petitioner. 6. Your petitioner states that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice done because of a non deliberate delay on the context that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the Rule nor procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way; the order passed in any forum ought not to be prejudicial to the interest of a person, even the law bends before the principles of justice. The litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. Furthermore, without prejudice to the contentions made hereinbefore, your petitioner states that the law is also capable of eradicating sheer injustice on technical grounds in a meaningful manner for the ends of justice as legalizing injustice may warrant anarchy. Henceforth your petitioner states that your honour may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal by admitting the same for hearing on merit. 7. Your petitioner stated that the question of natural justice is involved in the matter and unless the delay is condoned by your Honour, petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. Your petitioner has been diligent and no-fault attributes on its part rather it has been pursuing the matter bona fide devoid of any malice and there has been neither any latches nor any negligence on the part of your petitioner in filing the appeal in past. 8. The application is made bona fide and in the interest of natural justice. In the circumstances narrated above, your petitioner most humbly prays before your Honour that delay of 943 days in filing the appeal may be condoned and such further or other order or orders being made and/or direction be given as would afford complete relief to your petitioner. And for this act of your kindness, your petitioner is duty bound to pray.”

6.

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

ITA Nos.386 & 387/Kol/2026 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd.; A.Y: 2021-22 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 943 days in filing the quantum Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeals afresh subject to Assessee pay cost of Rs.4000/- payable to Income Tax Department.

7.

Since we have set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum Appeal and remanded the same to file of the CIT(A), we set aside the order of the CIT(A) upholding the order of penalty and restore the same to the file of the CIT(A), which shall be decided along with the quantum Appeal.

8.

In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced on 24.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.07.2026 DP, PS

ITA Nos.386 & 387/Kol/2026 Shyamnagar Anchal Skus Ltd.; A.Y: 2021-22 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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →