JABIR ALAM, ,CHOPRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), , RAIGANJ

ITA 1306/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 September 2026AY 2017-20187 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, which emphasize a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the assessee's explanation. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the appeal back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jabir Alam, is engaged in the supply business of pineapples. For the assessment year 2017-18, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated cash deposits of Rs. 9,85,000/- in the assessee's bank account with Central Bank of India and withdrawals totaling Rs. 2,77,81,000/- from his State Bank of India account (used for payments to farmers) as unexplained money. Additionally, Rs. 12,97,500/- invested in purchases through the Central Bank of India account was also added back. The AO made a total addition of Rs. 2,87,66,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 400 days. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, Kolkata, with a delay of 9 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 400 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation for the delay and the principles of substantial justice. (Question of law and fact, relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was bona fide and genuine because they did not receive a physical copy of the assessment order, were unaware of any taxable income or tax liability, and only became aware of an ex-parte order passed by the AO after receiving a phone call from the department regarding outstanding dues. The CIT(A) failed to consider the petition to condone the delay. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the impugned order but did not object to remitting the appeal back to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.01.2026 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

At the very outset, it appears from the report of the Registry that the appeal has been filed for a delay of 9 days. The a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →