ARIV CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 62(1), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2294/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2026AY 2017-20185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 286 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 286 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to this delay, citing lack of sufficient cause. The assessee provided reasons including issues with their tax consultant and a family health crisis.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned to allow for substantial justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kedia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Nilkanta Chakraborty, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 25.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2294/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Ariv Chakraborty Vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata Flat-C/4, Titas Apartment, 3rd Floor,Hatiara, Road, Jyangra, Baguiati, Kolkata-7000059 [PAN: AFYPC5183P] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Kedia, AR Respondent by : Shri Nilkanta Chakraborty, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 25.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 05.05.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 08.05.2023 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 08.05.2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 05.05.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the

ITA No.2294/Kol/2026 Ariv Chakraborty; A.Y: 2017-18 Assessee on delay in latches. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 05.05.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

3.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay and dismissing the first Appeals, thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 286 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders, Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 286 days. The Assessee in order to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing the appeal assigned following reasons.

“1. That, the appeal case for the A/Y 2017 - 2018 is filed before your honor on 19.03.2024, But, the assessment order and demand notice in respect of the said appeal was received by the appellant on 08.05.2023 in online portal and, therefore, due date for the filing appeal petition was within 07.06.2023. Hence, the appeal petition is filed 30days beyond time for thereasons as given here below.

ITA No.2294/Kol/2026 Ariv Chakraborty; A.Y: 2017-18 2 That after receiving the Order Copy and Demand Notice from the Income Tax Department website, approached my tax consultant in Kolkata to proceed for filing of appeal. My tax consultant started preparing documents for the Appeal. I followed up within on regular basis in relation to filing of appeal within the time limit. Every time he assured me that the appeal case would be filed within the stipulated time and that the documents were being prepared. On missing the deadline date of filing of the appeal case, I was disappointed with such service of my tax consultant. Then approached CA Abhishek Sharma from Siliguri with reference from one of my relative. Mr Abhishek Sharmafurther helped me to make this Appeal filed at your kind office. 3 Also further that, for the past 8 to 9 months, my mother Smt. Sampa Chakraborty is facing health crises and requires regular medical treatment and care. Since, I am the only son and she got operated in eye about 2 months ago, I have to look after her thoroughly which made me unable to comply with the notice in due time 4. It is humbly prayed that based upon the totality of the circumstances mentioned above, this office of CIT (Appeal) may be pleased to consider the prayer of the appellant in granting the condonation for delay in appearing before the CIT (Appeal) for justice and equity. 5. It is humbly submitted that on scrutinizing facts and circumstances in the accompanying application, the office of The CIT (Appeal) may please construe facts and circumstances as "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay. The facts and circumstances elucidated in the accompanying application involves the question of "substantial justice", where gross delay of 30 days, deserves to be condoned in the overall interest of justice. On the other hand if condoning the delay being denied it would seriously undermine the cause of justice, resulting into non justice for the appellant.” However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the above Appeals.

6.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall Page | 3

ITA No.2294/Kol/2026 Ariv Chakraborty; A.Y: 2017-18 condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 286 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

7.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 25.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25.08.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.2294/Kol/2026 Ariv Chakraborty; A.Y: 2017-18 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →