GAUTAM CHANDA,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD-34(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2030/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay of 1725 days in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving the Assessing Officer's order and sought condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and if the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 2029 & 2030/KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 Gautam Chanda.............................................................................Appellant 14/111, Rathtala Ramkrishna Lane, Chinsurah, Hooghly S.O. Chinsura Magra, Hooghly West Bengal- 712103 [PAN No. AHPPC4225M] Vs. ITO, Ward 34(1), ...................................................,..……………....……….Respondent Kolkata- 700107 Appearances by: Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Sanjit kumar Das, CIT, DR & Ambrish Mishra, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: August 12, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: August 25 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.03.2026 of the Office Of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147r.w.s144 and 271(1)(c) of the Assessment Year 2013- 14 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

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 CIT(A) as the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was a delay in filing of the appeal of 1725 days ignoring the condonation petition filed by the

ITA No.2029 & 2030/Kol/2026 assessee. The Ld. AR submits that reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee with regard to the delay in filing of the appeal but that has not been considered by the CIT(A) rendered the appeal dismissed in limine, i.e. liable to be set aside and direction has to be given to the CIT(A) to pass order on merit. The Ld. AR prayed that for interest of justice assessee an opportunity has to be given to the assessee to place his case before the CIT(A). The learned AR submits that demand notice was served on the assessee for the first time only on 23.07.2024, and appeal has been filed on 23.09.2024 and in this way the delay is of only one month.

Contrary to that ld. DR supports the impugned order there by submitting that there was a huge delay of 1725 days.

3.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that in form No. 35 the assessee has filed an affidavit in support of delay in filing of the appeal and according to him order of the Assessing Officers had not been received by the assessee vide his email or by hard copies. It is an admitted fact that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) only on the point of limitation. The prayer of the assessee is that assessee will suffer irreparable loss if the appeal of the assessee be not disposed of on merit and his prayer is that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) after condoning the delay. 2

ITA No.2029 & 2030/Kol/2026 In this context we have 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.”

4.

Keeping in view the facts of the case, considering the affidavit filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and looking at the judgment passed by the Apex Court, we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the CIT(A) by condoning the delay,with a direction to the CIT(A) to pass order on merit after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee.

ITA No.2029 & 2030/Kol/2026 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA 2030/26

it relates to the penalty proceeding , Since we have already set aside the quantum of appeal before the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order, hence the penalty order passed by the CIT(A) is also hear by set aside and remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a liberty to pass order after giving decision in the quantum of appeal

In the result, both the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 25th August , 2026.

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

DC Dated: 25 .08.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches 4

ITA No.2029 & 2030/Kol/2026

ITA No.2029 & 2030/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →