PATHIKRIT SENGUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 62(1),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the consultant's negligence and the delay should have been condoned. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without providing an opportunity to be heard, and also for delay in filing. The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80C and Section 24(b) which were not allowed. A penalty was also levied under Section 270A.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity to be heard and for condoning the delay. Whether the deductions claimed under Section 80C and 24(b) were rightly disallowed and if the penalty under Section 270A was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 1141 & 1142/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2020-21 Pathikrit Sengupta I.T.O., Ward-62(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ATMPS7448F Appearances: Assessee represented by : Vishvjeet Nagdu, AR. Department represented by : Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 06.07.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 16.07.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2020-21 dated 27.01.2026. Since the issues in both the appeals are related, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1141/KOL/2026; AY 2020-21: “1. OBJECTION AGAINST DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELANT 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (Appeals)),
“AFFIDAVIT OF CONSULTANT (To be filed before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in Appeal No. ITA/1141/KOL/2026 & Appeal No. ITA/1142/KOL/2026) I, CA Abhishek Mehta, Son of Mr. Ashok Mehta, Chartered Accountant, holding Membership No. 165275, having my office at 301 A, Rahul Apartments, SV Andheri (W), 400 058, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am a Chartered Accountant by profession and have been acting as the Tax Consultant and authorized representative of Mr. Pathikrit Sengupta (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”), holding PAN: ATMPS7448F, in all Income Tax related matters including the filing of Returns of Income and representation before the Income Tax Authorities. 2. That I had been duly appointed and entrusted with the responsibility of managing the Income Tax proceedings of the Appellant for Assessment Year 2020-21. I accept and acknowledge the said responsibility. 3. That I respectfully state that the Assessment Proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated vide Notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereafter various notices under Sections 143(2), 142(1), and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the course of the said proceedings. 4. That I do hereby solemnly state and declare that the said notices issued under Sections 143(2), 142(1), and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the Assessment Proceedings were not brought to my personal attention due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by a member of my office staff. The said notices were received in the Income Tax Portal linked to my practice, but owing to an oversight by my staff member, the said notices were neither segregated, flagged, nor brought to my attention in the ordinary course of my office workflow. 5. That I further state that the lapse in question was entirely internal to my office and was caused due to the failure of my staff member to duly communicate the receipt of the said notices to me. This was not deliberate, not wilful and not motivated by any malafide intention. Had the notices been brought to my attention in time, I would have immediately filed appropriate responses and attended to the proceedings diligently on behalf of the Appellant. 6. That I further state that I had no intention whatsoever to evade or avoid the proceedings or to cause any prejudice to the Appellant or to the Income Tax Department. The failure to respond to the notices was solely the result of an unintentional administrative lapse within my office for which I express sincere regret.
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata
More judgments on Section 80C
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Trinath Mandal, Koriya vs ITO, Ward-1(1), BilaspurITA 717/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026