What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the affidavit and judicial precedents on liberal interpretation of limitation, decided to set aside the lower authorities' orders. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as being barred by limitation. The assessee claimed the assessment order was received late, and the appeal was filed within 30 days of actual receipt.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation, and if not, whether the case should be remitted for fresh assessment on merits.

Anjaniputra Advisors Pvt Ltd… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACOUNTANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA

For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR

Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1998/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Anjaniputra Advisors Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Plot No.77, Mayur House, Ring Vs. Ward – 4(3), Road, Surat – 395002, Gujarat Kolkata [PAN: AAFCA5570R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.07.2026

O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.06.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012–13.

The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed return of income, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to the notices, AR of the company appeared and submitted documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) after going over the

ITA No.1998/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13 Anjaniputra Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO documents and submission making addition of Rs.79,01,481/- u/s 144 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) being barred by limitation.

Being aggrieved, dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) in the course of argument has submitted that in fact there was no delay in filing appeal as the assessment order itself was received on 19.10.2016 and appeal in Form No.35 was filed on 16.11.2016 within the limitation period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The ld. AR prayed that appeal be remitted back to the file of AO with a direction to pass fresh order as it is a case where the verification of the documents is required and that can only be done at the level of AO. The ld. AR has filed an affidavit to explain the reason of delay in filing the appeal, which is as follows:

“I, Manish Kumar Dokania, son of Shri Purushottam Dukania, aged about 52 years resident of Plot No 77, Mayor House, Ring Road, B/h 451, Textile Market, Ring Road, SURAT, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath by this Affidavit on this 03 day of May in the year Twenty-Twenty-six at SURAT as under: 01. I am director of the Company namely ANJANI PUTRA ADVISORS FVT LTD having it present registered office at Plot No 77, MATUR HOUSE, B/h 451, Textile Market, Ring Road, SURAT (003) 02. The case of the assessee vas selected for SCRUTINY and the assessment order was passed on 26/03/2015 under physical environment by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 413), Kolkata. During the course of Assessment proceedings. submitted that the Company had shifted to CUJARAT. The change in the Registered office of the company at Flot πο 77. MAYUR HOUSE, B/h 451, Textile Market, Ring Road, SURAT (GUJ) From 12, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata, wan informed to ROC vide Form 2 on 24/10/2017. The copy of the form is attached to this affidavit as ANN-"A".

ITA No.1998/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13 Anjaniputra Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 03. The address on the Assessment Order is 71, Canning Street, Kolkata. This address was also changed to 12. Mangoe Lane, Rolkata effective from 18/12/2008. 04. During that period, the service of orders/Notices was being done manually through Post or Notice server, it is very much likely that the order was served on the wrong address and therefore it did not reach to the Company. The Assessment order was finally delivered on 19/10/2016 to the office of the Tax Consultant CA at Kolkata and the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed under E-filing process on 16/11/2016 vide Ack No 534359401161116. Thus, the ASSESSMENT ORDER was received on 19/10/2016 i.e. after a gap of around 573 days. 05. As the Assessment Order itself was received on 19/10/2016, the filing of the Appeal in Form 35 on 16/11/2016 was within the limitation period of 30 days from the date of receipt. 06. Under the circumstances, I pray and request before your honours to consider the filing of Form No 35 as filed in time and the period during which the Assessment Order was not in knowledge of the assessee for the reason of no-receipt of the Assessment Order, may kindly be not considered for calculation of the limitation period. Alternatively and without prejudice, if a delay is being considered by your honours, I pray and request to kindly condone delay being for Bonafide reasons and unintentionally occurred without any negligence inaction on the part of the assessee the and The averments made above in the Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I have made the above Affidavit in good state of mind and health and without any pressure or coercion from any source. I understand and know that making a false Affidavit is an offence punishable under the law of the land. I verify this Affidavit under my hand as director of the Company on this 03 day of MAY in the year Twenty-Twenty-Six at SURAT.” 5. Contrary to that learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of AO.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the order of lower authorities, we find that assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. The AO in its order has held that no books of account

ITA No.1998/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13 Anjaniputra Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO has been produced and there was a little compliance when assessee was requested to give the list of shareholders to show the change of the hands. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. The submission of the ld. AR, as it also finds in the affidavit filed by him that in fact assessment order was received on 19.10.2016. The prayer of the ld. AR is that though there was no delay even it was it should be construed liberally and appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of AO to pass the order on merits by affording an opportunity to the assessee to place his case. 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.

ITA No.1998/Kol/2025/AY 2012-13 Anjaniputra Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 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.” 7. Keeping in view of the affidavit as well as the order passed by the lower authorities, we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the assessee to place his case. The order passed by the lower authorities are hereby set-aside and appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of ld. AO for passing a fresh order.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 06/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra) (Pradip Kumar Choubey) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 06/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY //

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata 5

ANJANIPUTRA ADVISORS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(3),, KOLKATTA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments