DIPAK KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3070/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 October 2026AY 2020-20214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delays when supported by justifiable reasons to ensure substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) committed a grave error in deciding the first appeal on its merits after dismissing it on the grounds of delay and laches. Considering the facts and circumstances, and noting that the issues involved required adjudication at the Assessing Officer's stage, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was to be provided with an opportunity of being heard before the de-novo assessment order is passed. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the original assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dipak Kumar Jain, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 24.05.2026 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 28 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The original assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 06.02.2025. The assessee had appealed this assessment order before the CIT(A), but this appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on 24.05.2026. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's first appeal due to a delay of 42 days in filing it, despite which the CIT(A) also adjudicated the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the assessee's first appeal, and subsequently dismissing the appeal on merits? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The delay was attributed to the hospitalization and advised rest for the assessee's advocate/authorized representative, Mr. Madhusudan Kakra. The assessee sought for the ITAT to allow the appeal, implying a direction to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal on merits. Revenue's contention: The Revenue vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the first appeal on the grounds of delay and laches. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s decision was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,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 S.K. Pransukhka, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Raman Garg, CIT, 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 ITA No.3070/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dipak Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Pratibha Apartments, 114 Hem Kolkata Chandra, Naskar Road, Phoolbagan, Kolkata-700010 [PAN: ACFPJ9694N] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, FCA Respondent by : Shri Raman Garg, CIT, 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-Kolkata [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short] dated 24.05.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

There is a delay of 28 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 28 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

ITA No.3070/KOL/2026 Deepak Kumar Jain; A.Y: 2020-21 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 06.02.2025 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 06.02.2025, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24.05.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.05.2026, 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 proceeded to dismiss the first Appeal on merits as well, 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 06.02.2025, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 42 days and the Assessee has contended following reasons to condone the delay:-

ITA No.3070/KOL/2026 Deepak Kumar Jain; A.Y: 2020-21 “The affidavit filed by the appellant-assessee seeking condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal, along with the four-page discharge summary issued by Dr. Anoop Khetan of R.N. Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences in respect of Mr. Madhusudan Kakra, stated to be the advocate/authorized representative of the appellant, reveals that Mr. Kakra was admitted to the said hospital on 15.02.2025 and discharged on 19.02.2025 in stable condition. The discharge summary does not indicate any restriction except dietary precautions relating to the valve replacement procedure undergone earlier on 08.02.2025. However, the said prescription/discharge summary does not substantiate the claim made in the affidavit by the appellant himself that Mr. Kakra had been advised by the doctor to take rest for six months. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant is not commensurate with the factual matrix and circumstances of the case.” However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the above Appeal. Further, after dismissing the Appeal of the Assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded further and also adjudicated the Appeal on its merit.

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

ITA No.3070/KOL/2026 Deepak Kumar Jain; A.Y: 2020-21 the delay of 42 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, it is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) committed grave error in deciding the first Appeal on merits after dismissing the Appeal on delay in latches.

8.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, as the issue involved in the Appeal requires 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.

9.

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: 1. Appellant MANISH Digitally signed 2. Respondent by MANISH 3. Pr. CIT KUMAR KUMAR BHOI 4. CIT(A) Date: 2026.11.02 BHOI 5. CIT(DR) 10:46:40 +05'30' //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 →