JAYANTA GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(1),, KOLKATA

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘एसएमसी’ Ûयायपीठ,कोलकाता
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT

आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1575/KOL/2025
(Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-2018)
Jayanta Ghosh,
BL-16/339/81, Parijat Vista,
Jyangra Ghosh Para, Baguiati,
Kolkata-700059
Vs
ITO Ward-49 (1), Kolkata
PAN No. :AKSPG 9825 B
(अपीलाथȸ /Appellant)
..
(Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent)

Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by :
Shri Dilip Kumar Saha, FCA
राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by :
Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing
:
16/10/2025
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement
:
21/11/2025
आदेश / O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2025 passed for Assessment
Year 2017-2018. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that the delay was on account of the non-receipt of the order of the AO as the order was on the portal and assessee could not receive the same physically. Ld.AR also submitted that the delay was due to change of authorized representative, insofar as the previous AR had died on 23.07.2024 after prolonged illness. Ld.AR further submitted that the files were received by the present AR only on 08.07.2024 and the appeal was 2
filed belatedly on 19.08.2024. Accordingly, ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may kindly be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may kindly be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A), so that the assessee could be able to produce all the details to substantiate his case.
3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submitted that no evidence of change of counsel nor death certificate of the earlier counsel had been produced.
It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
4. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material evidence on record. Admittedly, the assessee has not produced any evidence to show that the earlier counsel Shri Ratan Kumar
Ghosh was handling the tax matter of the assessee. Further no evidence of the demise of said counsel has also been produced. A perusal of the affidavit of the assessee shows that the assessee is mentioning that he bought smart phone in 2016-2017 for the first time. The appeal is relating to the assessment year 2017-2018. The date of the assessment order is dated 16.05.2023. The affidavit also mentions the demise of the earlier counsel but no evidence of earlier counsel being Ratan Kumar Ghosh has been produced. The assessment order is also ex-parte. Thus, even that the so-called smart phone purchased during the financial year 2016-2017, the assessee has been unable to deal with the notice received in the course of the assessment proceedings and the assessment order is also an ex-parte order. Hence, as the assessee has not been able to provide sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A), I am not 3
inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
Consequently, the order of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay, stands upheld.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/11/2025. (DUVVURU RL REDDY)

उपाÚय¢ / VICE PRESIDENT
Ǒदनांक Dated 21/11/2025
Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

(