SUBHDATA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1351/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 July 2026AY 2017-20186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as infructuous due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. However, the assessee failed to file the necessary form under the scheme and subsequently faced penalty proceedings, leading to a delayed appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as infructuous should be set aside to allow the assessee to pursue the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 253,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1351/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Subhdata Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata 14C, M.D Road, 4th Floor, West Bengal-700007 [PAN: AARCS2656J] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Manoj Kataruka, AR Respondent by : Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 27.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 30.01.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

There is a delay of 378 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: - “1. That I am the Director of M/s. Subhdata Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessee") having PAN No. AARCS2656J and I am duly authorised to swear this affidavit on behalf of the Assessee company.

ITA No.1351/KOL/2026 Subhdata Overseas Private Limited; A.Y: 2017-18 2. That in the case of the Assessee the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 25.11.2019. 3. That being aggrieved by the said additions, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who vide order dated 30.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by treating it as infructuous on the ground that the Assessee was opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. 4. That the time limit for filing of the appeal before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.01.2025, as per the provisions of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, expired on 31.03.2025 5. That the Assessee had expressed its intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and was under a genuine and bona fide belief that the dispute would be resolved under the said Scheme. The Assessee therefore did not take immediate steps to challenge the order of the CIT(A) before this Honourable Tribunal during the pendency of its consideration of the Scheme 6. That the Assessee ultimately could not file Form-4 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and consequently became ineligible to avail the benefits of the said Scheme. However, the Assessee was not immediately aware of the legal consequence of such non-filing and its impact on the CIT(A) order which had been dismissed as infructuous. 7. That the Assessee was under a genuine and bona fide impression that the matter was under process and that the dispute would eventually be resolved through the Scheme, and had no reason to believe that it was required to independently challenge the order of CIT(A) before this Honourable Tribunal. 8. That it was only upon receipt of the penalty order u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 20.03.2026, passed by the Assessing Officer, that the Assessee came to realise the full implications of the non-filing of Form-4 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and of the CIT(A) order having been dismissed as infructuous. 9. That upon receipt of the said penalty order dated 20.03.2026, the Assessee immediately consulted its legal counsel, who advised that the only appropriate remedy available to the Assessee at this stage was to file an appeal before this Honourable Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) dated 30.01.2025, and to simultaneously request restoration of the appeal so that the additions may be contested on merits. 10. That the present appeal has been filed on 13.04.2026, resulting in a delay of 378 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Page | 2

ITA No.1351/KOL/2026 Subhdata Overseas Private Limited; A.Y: 2017-18

11.

That the delay in filing the present appeal was not deliberate, wilful, or contumacious, but was solely on account of the Assessee's bona fide pursuit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and its lack of awareness of the legal consequence of non-filing of Form-4 under the said Scheme until the penalty order dated 20.03.2026 was received. 12. That no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the Revenue by condoning the delay, whereas the Assessee will be seriously and irreparably prejudiced if the delay is not condoned, as it will be denied an opportunity to contest the additions on merits before any forum. 13. That the delay in filing the present appeal is due to bona fide reasons without any mala fide intention and is due to reasonable causes beyond the control of the Assessee, and it is prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.”

3.

The Ld. AR reiterating the averments made in the Application, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

4.

DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present appeal on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material. 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 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

ITA No.1351/KOL/2026 Subhdata Overseas Private Limited; A.Y: 2017-18 substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 378 days in filing the Appeal.

6.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 25.11.2019 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 25.11.2019, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 30.01.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.01.2025, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Assessee has withdrawn the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), as the Assessee has opted for Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, however, the Assessee could not pay the requisite tax as per the said Scheme, therefore Department initiated recovery proceedings. Thus, submitted that the order of dismissal of the first Appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and opportunity may be given to the Assessee to pursue the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on merits.

8.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that Assessee has withdrawn the first Appeal on the pretext that Assessee has availed Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, however after dismissal of the Appeal, Assessee has not paid the tax due as per Vivad se Vishwas Scheme,

ITA No.1351/KOL/2026 Subhdata Overseas Private Limited; A.Y: 2017-18 2020 and thereafter on facing the recovery proceedings, Assessee now approached this Court with mala fide intentions. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

9.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. The Assessee withdrawn the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that Assessee has availed the benefit of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, however not paid the requisite tax as per the said scheme. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A), subject to Assessee paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, the issue involved in the present Appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeal on its merits in accordance with law. Needless to say, Assessee shall be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard.

10.

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

Order pronounced on 29.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.07.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.1351/KOL/2026 Subhdata Overseas Private Limited; 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//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →