GITA GHATAK,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2072/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 April 2026AY 2013-20146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's circumstances. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide evidence, the Tribunal found the assessment potentially bad-in-law due to issues with notice service via email. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file her return of income and respond to notices, leading to a best judgment assessment of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the ground related to this receipt but remitted the issue of notice validity to the AO. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, citing old age and dependency for delay and lack of proper communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the best judgment assessment and reopening of assessment were valid given the assessee's failure to respond and potential issues with notice service. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F,Section 139,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

ITA No. 2072/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gita Ghatak IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 2072/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Gita Ghatak,….………..……………………….…Appellant Adya Shakti Apartment, Block-A, Flat 2B, 267, Prantika, Garia S.O. South 24-Parganas, Kamdahari, Pin Code No. 700084, West Bengal [PAN:AZBPG2569G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-25(1), Kolkata Appearances by: Shri Prabir Kumar Sen, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: March 16, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: April 28, 2026 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.12.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2013-2014.

ITA No. 2072/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gita Ghatak 2. The appeal is time barred by 193 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 12.12.2025 before the ITAT in support of condonation of delay of 193 days mentioning that due to her old age suffering from lot of many diseases and fully being dependent on her son-in-law and tax consultant for any legal proceedings, she was not aware of any notice of hearing being served with respect to the proceedings and has no knowledge about the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and became aware from her son-in-law of the impugned order. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on 23.12.2024, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 193 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no fault or in action on her part in filing the appeal in time. Therefore, she pleaded to condone the delay.

3.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 193 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

4.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who did not file her return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on 31.03.2021. The assessee made a development agreement with the developer Shri Ajit Banik and received Rs.5,50,000/- as her share. The assessee was asked to assess/ re-assess the income/loss for the assessment year

ITA No. 2072/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gita Ghatak under consideration and accordingly notice under section 142(1) was issued. The assessee did not respond to the notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer. Getting no response from the side of assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed income of Rs.5,50,000/- under section 144 of the Income Tax Act and issued penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of concealment of income and issued penalty notice under section 271F of the Act for failure to furnish return of income.

5.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee relating to receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- ex-parte as the assessee failed to produce the details of development agreement with the developer vide deed of conveyance as well as not filing return of income as the assessee’s share of Rs.5,50,000/- with other co-owners is liable to pay tax as capital gain. The assessee did not file any return of income for the AY 2013-14 and did not furnish any evidence in support of her claim. In respect of the other ground relating to non-issuance of valid service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the ld. CIT(Appeals) remitted the matter back to ld. Assessing Officer for afresh reconsideration in accordance with law.

6.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to her old age with suffering from lots of diseases and being not comfortable with the computer system and for fully dependent on her son-in-law, she was not able to

ITA No. 2072/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gita Ghatak communicate with the notices issued by both the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Counsel pleaded to set aside the order passed by the revenue authorities and prayed for giving one opportunity to substantiate the case in support of her claim.

7.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the ground relating to unexplained money amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- as concealed income and other grounds relating to non-issuance of valid notice to the assessee remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and, therefore, the ld. D.R. pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

8.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessee failed to produce the details of requisite information as asked before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not furnish any evidence in support of her claim. From the record, it is seen that at the time of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish the income tax return for AY 2013-14 under sub-section 1 of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section 4 or sub-section 5 of section 139, therefore, ld. Assessing Officer proceeded for completion of best judgment assessment. Even during the course of assessment, notice under

ITA No. 2072/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gita Ghatak section 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee, but no compliance was made. As the assessee failed to file the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the amount of Rs.5,50,000/- received from the developer as her share with other co-owners treated as unexplained by the ld. Assessing Officer and taking approval from the competent authority reopened the assessment u/s 147 issued notice under section 148 through e- mail and through speed post for afresh reconsideration, therefore, reopening of assessment is held valid by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and dismissed the ground relating to the receipt of Rs.5,50,000/- from development agreement of the assessee ex-parte. As the assessee had no designated computer resource, where the electronic record from the department would have entered at the time of assessment in terms of section 13(2)(a)(i) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, actually, it appears that no e-mail address of the assessee was evident at the material time of such notices, therefore, assessment under section 147 read with section 144 being bad-in- law as the e-mail address appeared concurrently after registration of PAN while filing the return, which makes the assessment bad- in-law and illegal. The ld. CIT(Appeals) on careful perusal of the details available on record remanded the matter to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At

ITA No. 2072/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Gita Ghatak the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026.

Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 28th day of April, 2026 Copies to :(1) Gita Ghatak, Adya Shakti Apartment, Block-A, Flat 2B, 267, Prantika, Garia S.O. South 24-Parganas, Kamdahari, Pin Code No. 700084, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1), Kolkata, (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha 6

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →