S.R.D. CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.685/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 S.R.D. Construction................................................................................Appellant 156/A/78 B T Road, Kolkata- 700108, [PAN No. AEDFS0423C] Vs. I.T.O. Ward 37(1), ..…………..…………………....……….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, West Bengal- 700069 Appearances by: Soubik Guha, Adv, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Dheeraj, JCIT, SR. DR ,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : June 25 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.01.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2020-21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee being a firm, filed return of income for AY 2020-21. The case was opened u/s 147 r.w.s 148A on the basis of information that the appellant had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 72,00,000/- Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.02.024. In response thereto, the appellant had filed his return of income of Rs. NIL that to after due date. During assessment proceedings several notices were issued and served upon the appellant. In response thereto, the

ITA No.685/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2020-21 appellant remained non-complaint except once. Therefore, the AO found that the appellant had failed to give cogent reply along with documentary evidence with regard to source of money utilized to purchase the said property and made addition of Rs. 78,62,833/- as unexplained investment and Rs. 22,68,552/- as income from other sources to the total income of the appellant. Thus, the AO had completed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, vide order dated 15.01.2025 and determined total assessed income at Rs. 1,01,31,385/-. Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was a delay of filing of appeal by 103 days. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) after condoning the delay, as the assessee has sufficient reason of late filing of the appeal. The Ld. AR submits that the delay has been caused due to the illness of the father of the counsel and subsequently, the illness of the one of the partners of the firm and that has been explained by filing a condonation petition before the CIT(A) but CIT(A) did not consider and dismissed the appeal in limine.Prayer of the AR is that assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case. Contrary to that Ld. DR did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal.

ITA No.685/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2020-21 CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal only on the limitation. 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.685/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2020-21 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.

Kolkata, the 25th June , 2026.

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

DC Dated:.25.06.2026.

ITA No.685/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2020-21

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

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches