What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation. It also noted that both the Assessing Officer's and the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay, citing a bona fide belief that their accountant was handling compliance. The lower appellate authority had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities violated principles of natural justice.

Sheela Shaw vs I.T.O., Ward - 33(1) | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

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

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 28.07.2026Pronounced: 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.1747/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sheela Shaw Vs. ITO, Ward-33(1), Kolkata Block A-05, Flat No.6D, Brindaban Garden, 98, Christopher Road Topsia, Kolkata West Bengal-700046 [PAN: APXPS0114D] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Amit Agarwal, AR Respondent by : Shri Sandip Mandal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28.07.2026 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 11.04.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

There is a delay of 315 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 appellant in the matter pending before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench.

ITA No.1747/KOL/2026 Sheela Shaw; A.Y: 2017-18 2 That I am a layman in matters of taxation, having no expert knowledge of tax laws and procedures, and was acting under a bona fide belief that my accountant was ensuring full compliance with all legal requirements. 3. That I was under the bona fide belief that all necessary filings and compliance were being duly taken care of accountant and no further action was required on my part. 4 That on or about 7th April, 2026, I received call from the Income Tax Department for payment of outstanding tax demand. I came to know that a substantial demand was pending against me for AY 2017-18. 5 That immediately thereafter, I made enquiries from aforesaid accountant. Mr. Asish Mondal, who then admitted that he had failed to take requisite steps regarding my Income Tax matter for AY 2017-18. He then also admitted that he had under misconception of law filed two appeals for the same AY 2017-18. 6 That from a perusal of the Income tax Portal it was noted that the appeal, which was filed on 09.03.2020 against the Assessment Order dated 07.11.2019 passed in my case for AY 2017-18, was disposed vide Appellate Order passed on 11.04.2025. The said valid first appeal was disposed on the ground of non-prosecution. The second appeal, which was the infructuous appeal and was filed on 17.08.2021, was dismissed on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal vide appellate order dated 19.06.2025. 7 That on discussions the aforesaid accountant admitted that appeal is required to be filed in the Tribunal for my matter for AY 2017-18 but he expressed his inability to prepare the necessary appeal papers. In the meantime I had made payment of Appeal fees on 11.04.2026. 8. That on or about 28th April, 2026 after making various enquiries, I was able to consult a Tax expert/consultant viz. CA Deepak Singhal, for proper handling of the matter. The said Tax expert/consultant advised me to immediately file appeals along with Petition for Condonation of Delay. 9. That the said consultant asked for papers and document which was handed to him by 1 May, 2026. The said appeal was prepared on 8th May, 2026 and the appeal is thus being filed on next working day ile 11th May, 2026. 10. That there is a delay of 335 days in filing this appeal.

ITA No.1747/KOL/2026 Sheela Shaw; A.Y: 2017-18 11. That the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and occurred due to circumstances beyond my control. I submit that I have a strong case on merits, and grave prejudice will be caused if the delay is not condoned. 12 That the present appeal is being filed bona fide and in the interest of justice, and it is respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be admitted and heard on merits 13. That the last date for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as per the prescribed limitation period of 60 days from the date of passing of the Appellate Order dated 11.04.2025. expired on 10.06.2025 However, the present appeal has been filed thereafter, resulting in a delay of about 335 days, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to reasonable and sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 14 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the Petitioner Assessee most humbly and respectfully prays that - (i) The delay of 335 days in filing the appeal may be condoned, and (ii) to pass such order (s) as may be deemed appropriate in this case. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner Assessee shall ever pray.

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

The Ld. 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.

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,

ITA No.1747/KOL/2026 Sheela Shaw; A.Y: 2017-18 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 315 days in filing the Appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 07.11.2019 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 07.11.2019, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 11.04.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 11.04.2025, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law,

ITA No.1747/KOL/2026 Sheela Shaw; A.Y: 2017-18 which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

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.1747/KOL/2026 Sheela Shaw; 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

SHEELA SHAW,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 33(1), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments