RAKESH CHANDRA SHIL SARMA,BELONIA vs. ITO WARD UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 27/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit due to the non-condonation of the delay of 374 days. Upon examining the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal found them to be reasonable and bonafide. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the matter after considering all the evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. The issue of addition at 8% on total deposits was not decided on merit by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rakesh Chandra Shill Sarma, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The appeal concerns the confirmation of an addition at the rate of 8% on total bank deposits by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee is engaged in the business of ticket sales and bookings, receiving payments for airlines, travel agents, and hotels. The assessee contended that not all bank deposits represent gross receipts, and the commission earned is less than 1.5%. The assessee's counsel argued that the matter should be re-examined by the AO. Additionally, the assessee's counsel pointed out that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning a delay of 374 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned, thereby restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits? (Question of procedure, turning on the general principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay of 374 days was reasonable and bonafide, and therefore, the appeal should be restored to the file of the AO/JAW for proper examination of the issue. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Respondent: Shri Dipak Singh, DR
Pronounced: 10.03.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 11.11.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

2.

The issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition at the rate of 8% on total deposits in the bank as made by the ld. AO and assessed the income.

3.

The assessee is engaged in the business of sale of tickets/ booking and therefore, these payments are made to the Air Lines travel agent and hotels, etc. therefore, the entire deposit into the bank did not represent the gross receipt of the assessee on which the assessee has earned commission even less than 1.5%. Therefore, the ld.

4.

The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the ld. authorities below.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit by not condoning the delay of 374 days. We have examined the reason for delay in filing the appeal and find the same to be reasonable and bonafide. Accordingly, we condone the delay and restore the issue back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue after taking into account all the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →