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

ITA 2760/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2019-20206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the assessee contended the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) occurred due to illness, hospitalization, inability to run business activities, lack of technical knowledge, and incorrect professional advice. The Tribunal acknowledged that there was no proper representation before the AO and CIT(A) and that the deposits were stated to be from customers. The Bench was of the view that, on the facts of the case, the delay ought to have been condoned by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds of appeal on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 was to be followed. An opportunity of being heard was also to be provided to the AO, if required. The grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bibhutosh Ghosh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata 'A' Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal challenged the refusal to condone a delay of 715 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee's grounds also contested the Assessing Officer's (AO) calculation of cash deposits and withdrawals in bank accounts, the treatment of cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A, and the imposition of tax under Section 115BBE and interest. The AO had made an assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, determining total income at ₹1,88,39,311/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay, without adjudicating on the merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 715 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's alleged illness, hospitalization, and inability to conduct business activities and file the appeal, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in calculating the total cash deposits and withdrawals in Central Bank Account No. 3605171978, and whether the actual figures were different from those stated in the assessment order. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer provided confusing and contradictory figures for cash deposits and withdrawals in different parts of the assessment order. 4. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in calculating the total cash deposit in Central Bank Account No. 3157116131, where the actual cash deposit was allegedly NIL. 5. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in treating cash deposits of ₹1,87,53,574/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and imposing tax liability under Section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in adding Sections 234A, 234B, and 234F when the assessee had no taxable liability. 7. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in imposing penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC(1), and 272A(1)(d) on the ground of additional income. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to illness, hospitalization, inability to run business, lack of technical knowledge, unawareness, and incorrect professional advice. The delay was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control. The assessee has a strong case on merits, and condoning the delay would not prejudice the revenue. - The AO's calculation of cash deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts was incorrect, and the actual figures were different. The AO provided confusing and contradictory figures. - The cash deposit of ₹1,87,53,574/- was wrongly treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The AO also erred in calculating cash deposits in a specific account where the actual deposit was NIL. - The addition of Sections 234A, 234B, and 234F was incorrect as the assessee had no taxable liability. - The imposition of penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC(1), and 272A(1)(d) was unjustified. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that it be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234F,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 272A(1)(d),Section 194C

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:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order 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 2019-20 dated 18.06.2026. ITA No(s). 2760/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2019-20 Bibhutosh Ghosh.

2.

T

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →