Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a civil contractor, did not file original returns for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18. After receiving a notice under Section 148, belated returns were filed. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's accounts and estimated income under Section 44AD. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeals due to a 159-day delay, refusing to condone the delay.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the principle of natural justice, condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate promptly with the proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeals and dismissing them without considering the merits, and whether the delay should be condoned to allow for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 144, 144B, 44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
ITA No. 2532/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) & (A.Y. 2017-2018) Gurupada Halder IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) & 2533/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Gurupada Halder,…………………………………Appellant Bramhan Para, Gopinagar, P.O. Gopinagar, Bardhaman, Hooghly-712402, West Bengal [PAN:AEJPG4363D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-24(4), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O. Chinsurah, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Arvind Agrawal, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: May 22, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeals bearing and 2533/KOL/2024 are directed at the instance of assessee against the orders of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 22.10.2024 passed for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-2018 respectively. 1 (A.Y. 2016-2017) & (A.Y. 2017-2018) Gurupada Halder
Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of civil construction, supply of labours and received contractual receipts. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee has not fled original return since the appellant is having only contract receipts and on the same TDS has been deducted therefore, he was under impression that return need not to file. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2021 to the Appellant and in response to the notice the return was fled on 11.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 18,71,810/- (A.Y. 2016- 17) and Rs.15,69,650/- (for A.Y. 2017-18). Further, the ld. Assessing Officer has concluded the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein he concluded that the assessee is contractor and has not furnished his regular return of income, the total contractual receipts were of Rs.3,38,20,919/- (for A.Y. 2016-17) and Rs.4,52,70,925/- (for A.Y. 2017-18). The ld. Assessing Officer’s contention was that the total turnover i.e. Rs.3,38,20,919/- for A.Y. 2016-17 and Rs.4,52,70,952/- (for A.Y. 2017-18) was exceed the limit for audit of accounts. The assessee was compulsorily liable to maintain its books of accounts and get them audited in time and offered the business receipts in the Return of Income filed within original due date. The assessee has neither audited his books of accounts nor filed any Return of Income originally. The assessee has not filed regular return of income and not filed audit report in time. However, the assessee filed details after the notice issued u/s 148, therefore the books of 2 (A.Y. 2016-2017) & (A.Y. 2017-2018) Gurupada Halder accounts of the assessee were rejected and determined the net profit on estimated basis. The Id. Assessing Officer has calculated 8 percent on total turnover/sales by applying the provision of section 44AD of the Act and accordingly income of Rs. 27,05,674/- (8 percent of 3,38,20,919/-) for assessment year 2016-17 and Rs.36,21,674/- (8% of Rs.4,52,70,952/-) for assessment year 2017-18 was added to the total income of the assessee without considering the return filed by the assessee and also the submission made before him by the Appellant. Hence the assessee is in appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals)."
Both the appeals are time barred by 159 days in filing the appeals by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal - vs.- Rewa Coalfields Limited reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 178 CTR (P&H) 274 did not condone the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeals as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant.
The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the assessee without proper appreciation of reason for the delay as the assessee failed to explain any facts or to submit any documents/evidences to 3 (A.Y. 2016-2017) & (A.Y. 2017-2018) Gurupada Halder support/substantiate its claim. The ld. Counsel argued that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals without considering the issue on merit as well as without condoning the delay. Therefore, he pleaded to set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals).
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeals without proper appreciation of reason for the delay and he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to decide the case on merit. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeals without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised
by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
4. (A.Y. 2016-2017) & (A.Y. 2017-2018) Gurupada Halder
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/07/2025.