ARJUN SHAW,SOUTH TWENTY FOUR PGS. vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2759/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 October 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 115 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that the delay was due to illness and mental instability, supported by a medical prescription. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay when supported by justifiable reasons for substantial justice, the Tribunal found the cause for delay to be bona fide and beyond the assessee's control. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard before the de-novo assessment order is passed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arjun Shaw, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) dated 23.06.2026. This order had dismissed the assessee's first appeal against an assessment order dated 26.11.2025, passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for the dismissal by the Ld. CIT(A) was a delay of 115 days in filing the first appeal. The assessee contended that this delay was due to illness and mental instability, supported by a medical prescription. The revenue argued that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 115 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay of 115 days was due to illness and mental instability, which prevented him from running his business activities properly. He submitted a medical prescription as evidence and contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay and latches, as the delay was not intentional and was supported by sufficient cause. The assessee relied on the principle that the interest of justice would be prejudiced if the appeal was not admitted. Revenue's Contention: The revenue vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 115 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the first appeal on delay and latches.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kalyan Kumar Das, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 23.06.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 26.11.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.11.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 23.06.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Arjun Shaw; A.Y: 2018-19 Assessee.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.06.2026, Assessee filed the

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 →