RITARANI SAHA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 3178/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2013-14 Ritarani Saha............................................................................................................Appellant 29, Chhatwala Gulli, Bowbazar, 1st Floor, Kolkata- 700012 [PAN No. DXFPS1637L ] Vs. I.T.O., Ward – 37(1)...............................…………..…………………....……….Respondent 3, Govt. Palce (West, Kolkata- 700001 Appearances by: Manoj Kataruka, A.R., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Dheeraj, JCIT, SR. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : July 20 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 154 of the Assessment Year 2013-14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry the appeal of the assessee has been filed after a delay of 783 days. The assessee has filed a petition to condone the delay. Affidavit filed by the assessee is herein below:- The contention of the AR is that delay in filing of the appeal was due to the illness of the assessee. In this context, we have perused the several decisions 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." 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. 2. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. 3. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.” Keeping in view, the affidavit filed by the assessee and considering the judgment of the Apex Court the delayis hereby condoned. 4.The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee submitted her return of income electronically on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs 18.48,500/- Processing u/s 143(1) was completed by CPC on 07.08.2014 at a total income of Rs 18,53,650/- raising a demand of Rs. 4,79,980/-The assessee filed a petition u/s 154 on 14.02.2019, stating that after the demise of her husband, Late Sujit Kumar Saha on 23.07.2013 she became the proprietor of the proprietorship concern, M/s Priyam Tea Company. The learned AO finds that the net profit earned from the business of Rs.19.62,422/- should have been considered in the name of Late Sujit Kumar Saha and the ITR of Late Sujit Kumar Saha for the AY 2013-14 should have been filed by her as legal representative. But, from the ITR-4 filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-14, it is noticed that the assessee had herself considered the business income of Rs. 19.62,422/- and had shown total income of Rs. 18.48,500/- in her own return of income. Therefore, since the mistake is not apparent from records, her

rectification petition dated 14. 02. 2019 for the AY 2013-14 is hereby by rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 5.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us by taking following grounds: - 1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the action of the L.d. CIT(A) not to reduce the income of Late Sujit Kumar Saha husband of the assessee from the income of the assessee which was mistakenly filed is erroneous, illegal and bad in law. 2) That and the fact in the circumstances of the case, the entire income of the assessee of Rs.19.62:422/- was the profits of proprietorship concern, Priyam Tea Company of Late husband Sujit Kumar Saha mistakenly taken as income of the assessee and taxed twice in her hands and the action of the Ld. CIT(A) not to reduce the same and issue refund to the assessee is against the provisions of law, illegal, arbitrary, and excessive. 3) That the order passed by the A.O and upheld by the CIT(A) is arbitrary, excessive and illegal. 4) That the above grounds of appeal will be argued in detail at the time of hearing and the appellant crave leave to submit additional grounds of appeal, if any, and/or alter, verify, modify or rectify any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 5.1. The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order thereby submitting that Piryam Tea Company is the proprietorship concern of Late Sujit Kumar Saha and assessee is the wife of Late Sujit Kumar Saha filed its return of income including the profits of Priyam Tea Company and she also claimed credit of advance tax of Rs. 1,25,000/-

and credit of self-assessment tax of Rs. 300,000/-. It has been submitted by the AR that income was taxed but credits were not allowed as the tax was paid by Late Sujit Kumar Saha. The Ld. AR submits that assessment framed of Sujit Kumar Sahain which profits of Priyam Tea Company for the assessment company 2013-14 at Rs. 16,25,000/- @ of 2.50% has been assessed. The Ld. AR further submits that Sujit Kumar Saha died on 23.07.2013, the income Priyam Tea Company should be correctly assessed which he did.The Ld. AR submits that assessee filed the rectification application stating that the profits of Priyam Tea Company should have been assessed in the hands of Late Sujit Kumar Saha which was rejected because as per the AO, income of Late Husband Sujit Kumar Saha’s proprietorship concerned should have been considered in the name of Late Sujit Kumar Saha but because assessee herself declared so there was no mistake. The Ld. AR has filed that death certificate of the Sujit Kumar Saha, copy of the return filed by the assessee including the profits of Priyam Tea Company, Form 26AS of the assessee and Late Sujit Kumar Saha profit and loss account of ITR 4 of the assessee, assessment framed vide order u/s 143(3) of Late Sujit Kumar Saha.The prayer of the AR is that the profits to the extent of Rs. 19,62,422/- declared by the assessee of Priyam Tea Company should be reduced from her total income and the AO may be directed to do so. Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.

considered the gross-receipt of Rs. 5,54,528/- against total deposits of Rs. 6.24 crores. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that Priyam Tea Company is a proprietorship concerned of Late Sujit Kumar Saha who expired on 23.07.2013 and assessee being the wife of Late Sujit Kumar Saha filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 including the profits of Piryam Tea Company in short PTC. She also claimedcredit of advance tax of Rs 1,25,000/- and credit of self-assessment tax of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Income was taxed but credits were not allowed as the Tax paid by Late Sujit Kumar Saha( Form 26AS). Further we find that Schedule Profit and loss account of ITR-4 of the assessee for AY 2013- 14 showing sales of Rs. 70,784,691/- and schedule profit and loss account of ITR-4 showing profit before tax of Rs. 19,62,422/-. We find that for the year 2013-14 assessee has been taxed on the profits of Rs. 19,64,422/- of Priyam Tea Company (proprietorship concern of her Late Husband) whereas the credit of advance tax of Rs. ,25,000/- and self-assessment tax of Rs. 3,00,000/- has not been allowed. In the case of Late Sujit Kumar Saha income of Priyam Tea Company has been separately taxed in the assessment framed by the AO for the Assessment Year 2013-14 which has attained finality, as CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of Late Sujit Kumar Saha. 8 Keeping in view the above discretion, we find substance in the arguments of the AR is that the profits to the extent of Rs. 19,62,422/- declared by the assessee of the Priyam Tea Company should be reduced from the total income of the assessee.AO is directed to reduce an amount of Rs. 19,62,422/- as the same has been taxed at the hands of the husband of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 20th July , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated20 .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