BIJOY KUMAR PRASAD,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), GANGTOK,, GANGTOK

ITA 2145/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2016-20177 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that there was no proper representation before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, both the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2144/KOL/2026) were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the AO for reassessment de novo. The assessee was directed to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments. The grounds in this appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes. Similarly, for the penalty appeal (ITA No. 2145/KOL/2026), both the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) were set aside and remitted to the AO with a direction to reframe the penalty order after the assessment proceedings were finalized, as per Section 275(1A) of the Act. The grounds in this appeal were also partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions or the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bijoy Kumar Prasad, is an individual and a Sikkimese by origin engaged in trading broom sticks and scrap items. For Assessment Year 2016-17, no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted significant transactions including credit card payments and cash deposits totaling ₹53,53,085/-. Following a notice under Section 148, the assessee failed to file a return. The AO made additions of ₹3,22,285/- under Section 69C for credit card payments and ₹50,30,800/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits, assessing total income at ₹53,53,085/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], but the appeal was delayed by 675 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to insufficient cause for the delay, despite the assessee citing medical conditions of his father. The assessee also faced a penalty of ₹16,54,104/- under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee appealed both the quantum assessment and the penalty order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances explaining the delay, and whether the order so passed is arbitrary, unjust, and bad in law, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the grounds raised before him on merits instead of dismissing the appeal in limine, and whether the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the additions made by the Ld. AO under Section 69A (₹50,30,800/-) and Section 69C (₹3,22,285/-) of the Act, as argued by the assessee. The assessee also contended that they were entitled to exemption under Section 10(26AAA). The revenue did not record any specific arguments on these points. 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised against the penalty order imposing penalty of ₹16,54,104/- passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the penalty ought to have been deleted, as argued by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 10(26AAA),Section 275(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] for AY 2016-17 dated 30.04.2026. Since the issues in both the appeals are ITA No(s). 2144 & 2145/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 201

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 →