RAKESH KARMAKAR,KOLKATA WEST BENGAL vs. ITO, WARD 50(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA WESTBENGAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1573/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 July 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 336 days, considering the assessee's reasons as sufficient cause. However, due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer, the matter was remanded for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 336 days. The assessee cited his mother's severe kidney problem and his delegation of tax work to a chartered accountant who failed to act as reasons for the delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The subsequent compliance issues before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

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.1573/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Rakesh Karmakar Vs. ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata Bhatenda, PO-Rajarhat West Bengal-700135 [PAN: CYVPK2557D] 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 NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 05.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 02.01.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 02.01.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 05.02.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee on

ITA No.1573/KOL/2026 Rakesh Karmakar; A.Y: 2020-21 delay in latches. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 05.02.2026, 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 captioned Appeals.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 336 days in filing the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeals of the Assessee on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 02.01.2025, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 336 days. The Assessee in order to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing the appeal assigned following reasons.

“This has in reference to the Assessment order passed under section 147 rws. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act1961 under DIN dated on 2nd Jan 2025 I would like to bring to your kind notice that through the assessment order had been sent on 02 Jan 2025 but no appeal had been filed against such order, Page | 2

ITA No.1573/KOL/2026 Rakesh Karmakar; A.Y: 2020-21 and it was noticed that at the Assessment Stage no requisitions had been filed before the Assessment Unit As I was busy with the treatment of my mother who is suffering from severe kidney problem and require dialysis regularly and I had delegated the work to handle income tax related work to a professional chartered accountant, But due to reasons best known to him he did not respond to notice issued by the Assessment Unit also did not file the appeal in its due time. Under this situation I do not have any other recourse but to request you to give me a chance to produce the necessary details which will should clearly established that I have not suppressed any income in my accounts, I am enclosing herewith the prescriptions of the attending physician to my mother and condone the delay in filing the appeal”.

However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.

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 condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Page | 3

ITA No.1573/KOL/2026 Rakesh Karmakar; A.Y: 2020-21 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 336 days in filing the first Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, as the Assessee has not made full compliance before the Assessing Officer, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh 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 29.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.07.2026 DP, PS 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →