ANSHU SAHAY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), IT, KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

ITTPA 16/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 October 2026AY 2014-20159 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, relying on the grounds presented by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court pronouncements. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had explicitly directed the AO to verify whether the alleged capital gains and deemed rental income were already examined and assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay, and to obtain necessary verification from Shri Veer Krishna Sahay's jurisdictional AO. The AO admittedly did not obtain this verification and proceeded to make additions based on assumptions, stating no response was received from the other jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal noted that Section 144C(10) makes DRP directions binding and Section 144C(13) mandates conformity. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to undertake the mandated verification and his subsequent additions on assumptions constituted a fundamental violation of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after proper verification and compliance with DRP directions. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anshu Sahay, filed appeals against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle 2(1), IT, Kolkata, for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The appeals were filed after significant delays of 1153 and 1123 days. The assessee had previously filed appeals (ITA No. 682/Kol/2025 and connected appeals) which were withdrawn on March 12, 2026, with liberty to file fresh appeals. The current appeals were filed on May 27, 2026. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 and made additions for alleged long-term capital gains of Rs. 88,05,831/- and deemed rental income of Rs. 1,74,758/- in relation to a property developed under a Joint Development Agreement. The assessee contended the property belonged to his father and legal heirs of his deceased brother, and he merely signed documents. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had directed the AO to verify if the income was assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned. (Question of law) 2. Whether the additions of long-term capital gains and deemed rental income are valid, given the AO's alleged non-compliance with DRP directions. (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's arguments: - The delay in filing the appeals is unintentional and bona fide, occurring due to the procedural requirement of withdrawing defective earlier appeals and filing fresh ones after obtaining liberty from the Tribunal. The assessee cited Supreme Court judgments in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy to argue for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. - The AO failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the DRP, which mandated verification of income assessment in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay from his jurisdictional AO. The AO made additions on assumption without such verification, rendering the assessment order without jurisdiction and unsustainable, citing JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT and other ITAT decisions. Revenue's arguments: - The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member IT (TP) A 15 to 18 /KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2013-14 & 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2016-17

Anshu Sahay.......................................................................................................Appellant J 1201, Mantri Tranquil Off., Kanakpura Road, Gubbalala, Bangalore, Karnataka- 56001. [PAN No. AXPPS4022A]

Vs. ACIT, Circle 2 (1), IT, Kolkata...................................,..……………....……….Respondent Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 110, Shantipally, E M Bypass, Kolkata West Bengal- 700107

IT(TP) A 19/KOL/2026 Assessment Year-2013-14 Mishoo Sahay............................................................................................................Appellant J 1201, Mantri Tranquil Off. Kanakpura Road, Gubbalala, Bangalore, Karnataka- 560061 [PAN No. AXPPS4024G] Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), IT, Kolkata.............................................................................Respondent Aaykar Bhawan Poorva 110, Shantipally, E M Bypass, Kolkata West Bengal- 700107 Appearances by: Bisweswar Ghosh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appell

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →