BHASKAR BHATTACHARYYA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No. 3166/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Bhaskar Bhattacharyya.............................................................................................Appellant 1001, Tripua Sundari Road, Sibashis, Kolkata- 700154. [PAN No. BEWPB2924R] Vs. I.T.O., Ward-33(1),………..…………………....……................................….Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata- 700071 Appearances by: Joydeep Chakraborty, Advocate,appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Dheeraj, SR. DR,, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 01, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : July 21 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.11.2025 of the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, passed under Section 147r.w.s. 144 of the Assessment Year 2016-17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the appellant did not file return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 despite information under the Risk Management Strategy showing a sale of immovable property valued at Rs. 2,41,28,600/- and interest income of Rs. 1,600/- during F.Y. 2015-16. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2023, followed by repeated notices u/s 142(1), but most remained unanswered. Only partial replies were received to SCNs

ITA No.3166/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 dated 09.10.2023 and 20.11.2023, wherein the appellant denied selling any property and claimed it was a joint development agreement of 2012 where the developer sold units and gave two flats to the owners as consideration. However, no supporting evidence such as registered agreement, completion certificate, sale deeds, or proof of consideration flow was submitted despite multiple opportunities. The Power of Attorney submitted stated that any sale proceeds were to be credited to the appellant 's bank account, contradicting his claim that the developer received the money. The appellant failed to substantiate the cost of acquisition, indexed cost, or expenditure relating to the property transaction. The Department relied on information from ITS/NMS showing property sale transactions under the appellant 's PAN and treated the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,41,28,600/- as long-term capital gains due to lack of evidence from the appellant Interest income of Rs. 1,600 was assessed as "Income from Other Sources since no bank details were provided. As the appellant did not comply with statutory notices and failed to furnish the return of Income, the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and 144B, adding a total income of Rs. 2,41,30,200/-. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO as assessee could not be able to furnished the supporting documents to satisfy the claim and the assessment was done in absence of supporting documents. The Ld. AR submits that before the CIT(A),

ITA No.3166/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 there was a delay of 351 days and assessee has filed a petition to explain the delay but the CIT(A) did not consider the reason explained nor the CIT(A) considered the law of the Apex Court. His prayer is that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officers after setting aside the order of the lower authorities and after condoning the delay. Contrary to that ld Dr supports the impugned order. 5. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order of the CIT(A) we find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that there is a delay of 351 days and there was no bona fide reasons and sufficient cause in the petition of the assessee. We further find that AO has also held that assessee did not furnish any further document/details as called for. The ld. AO has further held that assessee failed to furnish the details regarding in the cost of acquisition or expense incurred regarding the sale of the immovable properties. The prayer of the assessee that assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case before the AO. It is a fact that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation. In this context, we have perused the gone through aecisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]:

"... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant."

ITA No.3166/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: 5."It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.

ITA No.3166/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee. he order of the lower authorities are hereby set aside. Appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 21st July , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member DC Dated:. 21 .07.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.3166/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17