PRAKASH GHOSH,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(3), NADIA

The assessee has filed as many as 13 main grounds and 7 sub- grounds of appeal. The main grounds relate to firstly, the assessing authority erring in arbitrarily invoking the provisions enacted u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act which is not tenable in law and secondly, the assessing authority erring in determining ₹6,79,250/- being 50% of ₹13,58,500/- as ‘income from other sources’.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had voluntarily filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 showing total income of ₹4,20,370/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that during the FY 2015-16 the assessee had purchased an immovable property on 21.03.2016 for a consideration of ₹29 Lakh. The stamp value authority determined the market value of the property at ₹42,58,500/-. Since there was a difference of ₹13,58,500/- in the value of purchase consideration therefore, the Ld. AO applied the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and added an amount of ₹6,79,250/- being 50% of the difference in the value (the property being in the joint name of the assessee and his wife) to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹10,99,620/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 25.02.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 157 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined.

There was a delay of 157 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The reason for non-appearance by the assessee was not being conversant with the fact as proper application should have been filed. The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in para 2.7 that the assessee was asked for a condonation letter vide notice dated 06.02.2025 to which the assessee requested adjournment which was granted for hearing on 20.02.2025. However, no response/application for condonation was furnished by the assessee. Hence it was held that the assessee did not have any reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR requested that due compliance shall be made in case the appeal is remanded before the Ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the facts of the case and the law, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on merit by passing a speaking order subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- as despite being asked to file a letter seeking condonation of delay as per para 2.7 of the impugned appeal order, only an adjournment was sought but neither any response was filed nor any application seeking condonation of delay was filed even though the delay had been communicated to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall furnish the proof of payment of cost before the Ld. CIT(A) on the 1st date of the hearing else the appellate authority shall be at liberty to decide the appeal on merits. The assessee is directed to file an ITA No(s). 321/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2016-17 Prakash Ghosh. affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) mentioning the reasons for the delay along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of the grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th May, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 08.05.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order