What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 154 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 154 days, citing a family mishap. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to this delay. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay.

Somnath Haldar, South Twenty Four… vs I.T.O., Ward - 25(1), Kolkata | s.250 | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

For Appellant: Shri Dipankar Khaskel & Shri Pawan

For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17.08.2026Pronounced: 31.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1064/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Somnath Haldar Vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata Vill-Ramdhari, PO-Doltala, PS- Baruipur South 24 Paraganas West Bengal-743376 [PAN: ANEPH9242C] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Dipankar Khaskel & Shri Pawan Kr. Shaw, ARs Respondent by : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2026 O R D E R PER GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 31.10.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2023-24.

There is a delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application along with affidavit for condonation of delay, the delay of 84 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.1064/KOL/2026 Somnath Haldar; A.Y: 2023-24 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.12.2024 and the grievance of the Assessee in this appeal is that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.22,41,552/- to the total income without appreciating the details filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 23.12.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 31.10.2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 31.10.2025, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

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 Appeal.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 154 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders, Assessee preferred

ITA No.1064/KOL/2026 Somnath Haldar; A.Y: 2023-24 Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 154 days. The Assessee in order to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing the appeal assigned following reasons.

“We beg to inform you that we were in receipt of above-mentioned order on 23.12.2024. Due to some grave mishap in our family I was completely disorganized and could not follow up the matter and inadvertent delay had been made in filing appeal. In this regard we request you to condone the delay in filing of the appeal shall be much obliged if you please consider our situation.” However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the captioned Appeal.

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 & 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 154 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to

ITA No.1064/KOL/2026 Somnath Haldar; A.Y: 2023-24 the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

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

Order pronounced on 31.08.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (GOPALAN GURUSAMY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 31.08.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

SOMNATH HALDAR,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments