SRI SAMAR NATH MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 29(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 367/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2014-15 Sri Samar Nath Mondal ITO, Ward 29(1), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: BMSPM8601A Appearances: Assessee represented by : B. B. Payara Advocate. Department represented by : S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 28.04.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 09.06.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 17.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) erred in rejecting the Appeal of the Appellant as there was delay of 1439 days in filing the Appeal and the person who had represented the Appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) had failed to explain properly the reasons behind the delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), the same has been fully explained in the enclosed Affidavit duly sworn before the Notary Public explaining therein the reason of delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). On perusal of the said Affidavit it will be seen that your Appellant was prevented by reasonable causes for non-filing the Appeal within the stipulated time which were not properly explained before the Ld. CIT (A)

BEFORE THE HON'BLE "D" BENCH, I.T.A.T. KOLKATA, IN THE CASE OF SRI SAMARNATH MONDAL IN RESPECT OF I.T.A. NO. 367/KOL/2026 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BRIEF HISTORY & SUBMISSION The Appellant above named did not file any Income Tax Return for the above Assessment year as he did not have any taxable income. But the Assessing Officer on the basis of information available in the I.T. Department came to know that the Appellant had sold two pieces of lands along with other parties. On the basis of the said information after taking approval from the competent authority, the A.O. issued to the Appellant Notice u/s. 148 of the LT. Act, 1961 on 20.03.2020, which was although served on him but there was no response. Thereafter as per Assessment Order although various notices and letters were issued and served on the Appellant there was no single response. Finding no other way the A.O. had completed Assessment u/s.147r.w.s.144r.w.s.144B of the Act on 21.09.2021 determining Assessed Income at Rs.62,83,970/- and raising a Demand of Rs.34,46,398/-. The Appellant vide his Affidavit sworn before the Notary Public of India, which has been enclosed along with this Appeal has confessed that all the papers, which were received from the office of the A.O. from time to time were handed over for taking necessary and timely action to one Mr. CHIRANJIB DAS of 4/2A, Raja Ram Mohan Sarani, P.S. Amherst Street, Kolkata-700009, to whom the Appellant believed blindly and who also assured him for doing the needful in the matter for which he was paid his fees, filing fees of Appeal etc. In the middle of June,2025, when the adjustment of Refunds for the Assessments 2023-24 & 2024-25 were made by the Department against the Demand for the A.Y. 2014- 15, the Appellant could understand there was something wrong. To clarify the issue he went to the house of Mr. Chiranjib

Condonation of delay SAMAR NATH MONDAL BMSPM8601A AY-2014-15 1. That appellant has no taxable income so that he did not file any return for A.Y 2014-15. The appellant had filed its IT return for the AY-2015-16 for the first time on 14.03.2016 through a tax consultant since then he was authorized to deal with your appellant's IT matter and handed over all income tax notices, order, etc received from IT Department for necessary compliance in due time but the said consultant had not complied any notices keeping me in dark. The impugned assessment was received on 21.09.2021 which was handed over to him but he did not file any appeal or even represented the case before the Id AO resulting ex-parte order u/s 144/147. Thus, the cause for delay was beyond the control of the appellant. 2. That your appellant due to lack of digital knowledge was not following the e-portal where all the notices and assessment were served. All the notices were issued by IT Department and on receiving of the same notices were forwarded to my Tax consultant for necessary compliance to the I.T department. 3. That your appellant had received the hard copy of the assessment order or demand notice u/s 156 of the Act through registered post and handed over to the Tax consultant who was authorized to deal with the same. Few days before I went to the Tax consultant office to enquire about my IT matters position and wanted to know why my IT refunds for the AY- 2023-24 & AY 2024-25 have been adjusted with demand but his wife told me that he has expired and given me the copy of the demand notice and penalty orders. It is evident from the order that the Tax consultant had not moved my case either to appeal nor complied to all notices during scrutiny proceedings. I have no option than to depend on a legal consultant as I am not aware of I.T. matters and if the Tax consultant does not do his job, the appellant cannot be held responsible. Thus, there is a delay in filing the present appeal which is not attributable to your appellant and hence may be condoned for 1470 days. That appellant further prays before your good self that due to negligence of the earlier consultant, the receipt of the impugned assessment order and notices, shall not be penalized and allow to submit his arguments regarding the addition so made for investment so deposited into his bank account. Thus, it is preyed that delay in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order maybe condoned as your appellant could not make any representation before the ld AO at the time of assessment proceedings. It is well settled in law that if the tax is not legitimately due, an assessee cannot be made to pay the tax. It is the AO's responsibility to collect tax as per the Income Tax Act. It must only collect legitimate tax due, not what is not due. In order to be fair and follow the principle of natural justice, your appellant seek a chance to explain the sources of the