SULALIT BISWAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(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 1127/KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 Sulalit Biswas..............................................................................................................Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Bentick Street, Unit-A,B&C, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700001 [PAN No. AESPB9580Q ] Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1),.....................................…………..…………………....……….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata- 700031 Appearances by: Avijit Dey, A.R, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 02, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : July 16 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 147r.w.s144 of the Assessment Year 2015-16 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 assessee has not filed return for the assessment year 2015-16 and as per the information available with the office it is noticed that assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 84,00,000/- during the year under consideration and he was required to file the return of income.

ITA No.1127/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 According notice u/s 148 was issued and assessee has been asked to submit response but there was complete non-response as a result of which a long term capital gains of Rs. 83,99,908/- has been determined to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of limitation as the CIT(A) has observed that appeal has been filed after a delay of 806 days. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO as the order passed by the AO is an ex-parte and CIT(A) has passed order not on merit rather dismissed in limine by not condoning the delay. The Ld. AR prayed that the reason for delay has not been considered by the CIT(A) that assessee was mentally disturbed due to his marital separation and it was the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The prayer of the AR is that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The Ld. DR supports the impugned order. 4. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order of the lower authorities, we find that assessment order was passed when there were non-compliance and CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the point of delay. Interest of justice demands to give an opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the lower authorities. So far the delay is concerned, 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],

ITA No.1127/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 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.

ITA No.1127/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”

Kolkata, the 16th July , 2026.

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

DC Dated: 16 .07.2026.

ITA No.1127/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16

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.1127/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16