ANGKUR MOULIK,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, SILIGURI

ITA 3124/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2026AY 2019-20206 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar circumstances and the explanation provided in the affidavit regarding the erstwhile consultant, deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay, claiming non-receipt of the intimation. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay, citing successful electronic delivery of the intimation and proposed adjustments. The assessee explained the delay by stating the email and mobile number used for communication belonged to an erstwhile tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 3124/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Angkur Moulik I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Siliguri Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AHGPM6475N Appearances: Assessee represented by : Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate. Department represented by : Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 21.05.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 22.06.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2019-20 dated 01.12.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order in limine, without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide and reasonable causes duly explained by the appellant. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) ought to have quashed the intimation issued u/s 143(1) dated 11.02.2021 and/or held the same to be bad in law for having been issued in violation of principles of natural justice.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Before us, the Ld. AR made a very humble request that in the interest of justice and fair play, the delay ought to have been condoned. We also note that the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 07.03.2026 which is as under:

“BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC AFFIDAVIT I, Angkur Moulik, son of Ananta Kumar Moulik, aged 49 years, by religion Hindu, residing at Goyt. Saw Mill Road, Tumal Para, Siiguri, Pin-734001, Dist-Darjeeling West Bengal, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows- 1. That I had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 02.05.2025 against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) dated 11.01.2021 for A.Y: 2019-20 with a delay of around 1542 days. 2. That the said intimation was never served me through post, which is evident from the screen-shot of the income tax portal reproduced at page 7 of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)'s order dated 01.12.2025. 3. That the email id mentioned aforesaid screen-shot i.e. manatosh.sarkar123@rediffmail.com belonged to the erstwhile tax consultant entrusted with the job of tax compliances. Even mobile no. mentioned therein belonged to the said consultant.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →