ALIP SARKAR,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3054/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 October 2026AY 2018-20194 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 539 days in filing the first appeal before the NFAC. The Tribunal reasoned that while it is expected for assessees to file appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona fide and beyond the assessee's control, it can be construed as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's clarification that delay in filing an appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into liberally to ensure substantial justice, citing the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. Since the issue involved in the appeal required adjudication at the Assessing Officer's stage, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was assured of an opportunity of being heard before the de-novo assessment order is passed. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the assessment order itself.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Alip Sarkar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated May 13, 2026, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessment order was passed on January 30, 2024. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was filed with a delay of 539 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing lack of awareness in operating computer applications and the ITD portal, and not knowing what action to take against the demand. The assessee claimed to have found the demand notice in August and approached an advocate who advised filing an appeal with a delay condonation petition. The ITAT noted a delay of 27 days in filing its own appeal, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) committed an error in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it, thereby dismissing the assessee's appeal on merits? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of provisions related to condonation of delay). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, and the NFAC's failure to do so constituted an error, warranting the allowance of the appeal. The assessee relied on the principle of substantial justice and the liberal interpretation of delay condonation, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 539 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC, and therefore, the NFAC was justified in dismissing the assessee's first appeal on grounds of delay and latches.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B

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 Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar De, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.10.2026Pronounced: 29.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITANo.3054/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Alip Sarkar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), C/o-Ashim Kumar Sarkar, Jalpaiguri Debipara, Oodlabari, PO-Manabari, PS-Mal, Dist- Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-735222 [PAN:DMCPS4323F] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AR Respondent by : Shri Sandip Kumar De, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 27.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2026 O R D E R 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 13.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

There is a delay of 27 days in filing the present Appeal. Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the cause for the delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 27 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.3054/KOL/2026 Alip Sarkar; A.Y: 2018-19 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.01.2024 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 30.01.2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before theLd. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 13.05.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13.05.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

4.

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, though there was sufficient cause to condone the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal and dismissing the Appeal, thus, sought for allowing the captioned Appeal.

5.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first Appeal of the Assessee on delay in latches.

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 30.01.2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 539 days and the Assessee has contended following reasons to condone the delay:-

ITA No.3054/KOL/2026 Alip Sarkar; A.Y: 2018-19 “That the petitioner not very awareness to operate computer application as well as not accustomed to deal ITD common portal. The petitioner have no knowledge about this matter. The petitioner have no knowledge what action should be done against the demand. In the month of August ultimately find out the said demand notice and he looking for the competent professional what action should be taken against the said demand. Immediately come to knowledge of the petitioner, he approached to Sri Dulal Roy, Advocate on 2nd Week of August 2025 who has advised me to file the appeal immediately along with delay condonation petition. Then he has prepared Memorandum of Appeal along with grounds of Appeal immediately which is filing today. Considering the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, your goodself would appreciate that there were sufficient causes for such delay in presenting the appeal therefore, the said delay may kindly be condoned by your goodself and to consider the petition on merits.” However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the above Appeal.

7.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 539 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

ITA No.3054/KOL/2026 Alip Sarkar; A.Y: 2018-19 Further, as the issue involved in the Appeal required to be adjudicated at the stage of the Assessing Officer, we remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, Assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard before passing the de-novo assessment order.

8.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 29.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.10.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: MANISH Digitally signed by 1. Appellant MANISH KUMAR KUMAR BHOI 2. Respondent Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 3. Pr. CIT 11:53:50 +05'30' 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →