Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return for AY 2014-15 was assessed by the AO with additions, notably a Rs. 40,00,000 bogus loan liability from her father, leading to a significantly higher taxable income. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, primarily for a Chapter VIA deduction, while dismissing other grounds, as the assessee contended she couldn't make proper representations due to her and her counsel's serious medical conditions.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 332-day delay in filing the appeal due to the medical reasons provided. Recognizing the lack of proper representation at lower stages, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a full opportunity to present her case and evidence.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of additions, particularly a Rs. 40 lakh bogus loan liability under Section 68; denial of natural justice due to lack of opportunity for proper representation.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 154, 68, 271D, 269SS, Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 06.03.2024, which has been passed against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 21.11.2016. I.T.A. No.: 904/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rituparna Biswas.
The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 332 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “In this case, the Ld. CIT Appeal, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi, passed order vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062102224(1) dtd. 06-03-2024 u/s. 250 of the L.T. Act, 1961, Ex-Parte for reasons as stated in the Order itself for non- compliance of the Notices issued. The reasons for non-compliance was explained subsequently by the Ld. Counsel CA. D.K. Bandyopadhyay, FCA who had been assigned to file the Appeal Case before your honour was a covid victim in the year 2020 and it was so serious that he had to admit frequently in Fortis Hospital mostly, and also Ruby, Amri and Apollo Hospital during the entire period when your honour issued Notices and such fact can be verified from the Admission/Discharge summary issued by the Hospital on different dates are being attached hereto for your honour's satisfaction as regards the reasonable cause for non-compliance despite Notices are being issued. With this backdrop and since the Appeal was heard ex parte as agitated by the Ld. Counsel CA. D.K. Bandyopadhyay, FCA now owing to his serious medical problem as adduced hereto, it has been prayed before your Honour to give justice to the Appellant since no proper justice could be given to the Appellant by the Ld. CIT (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi due to the Ld. Counsel CA. D.K. Bandyopadyay, FCA being serious Covid Victim during that period when Notices were issued. Moreover, the Appellant has filed a Petition u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 praying for Rectification of the Order in Appeal No. CIT(A), Kolkata-7/10330/2016-17 DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFCA/S/250/2023-24/1062102224(1) Date of Order: 06-03-2024 u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 through Speed Post on 02-09-2024 vide Tracking No. EW039464937IN (Postal Track Record shows delivery of the Petition along with enclosures). But the Ld. CIT(A), (NFAC, Delhi) has not yet dispose of the said Petition u/s. 154 and as such, the Appellant waited for disposal of Petition u/s 154 which also cause delay in filing of this Appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench.
In view of the above facts and the reasonable cause as has been explained supra, it is prayed before the Hon'ble Members to condone the delay in filing of this Appeal in the interest of natural justice. Since, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss/financial injury for denial of natural justice. I.T.A. No.: 904/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rituparna Biswas. Hence, this Petition for condonation of delay may kindly be adjudicated in interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Appellant shall ever pray.”
Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the Authorities below has erred in law and in fact by not considering the additions made for Rs. 2,97,555/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by wrongly considering the calculations made on account of difference as per Return and Balance Sheet on account of Unsecured Loan and Sundry Creditors which is completely arbitrary, unlawful and unjust.
For that the Authorities below has arbitrarily and without verifying the loan taken by the Assessee from her father Bimal Kumar Biswas of Rs. 40,00,000/- through banking channel and has been duly reflected in the Balance Sheet as well as in the Bank Statement of the Assessee and accordingly, such addition as bogus loan liability is very much untrue, unlawful and unjust.
For that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to examine from the assessment records that Penalty Order u/s. 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of the Appellant have been passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-26, Kolkata in F. No. Addl. CIT, Range- 26/Kol/Penalty/2017-18 dtd. 30-08-2017 where the Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rage-26, Kolkata had held that there was no Cash Loan taken. by the Assessee during the F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15 in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 269SS of the Act and accordingly, Penalty Proceeding u/s. 271D of the Act is dropped. Hence, this ground may kindly be considered in conjunction with Ground No. 2 above.
For that the Appellant craves leave to add and/or withdraw any grounds further before or at the time of haring of this appeal by the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench.” I.T.A. No.: 904/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rituparna Biswas.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 showing total income of ₹ 9,46,880/-. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') made certain additions on account of interest income, unexplained cash credit, bogus loan liability etc. and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹ 53,59,730/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal after observing as under: “Based on the details available with me, the only decision I am in a position to take is with regard to the appellant’s ground that deduction under chapter VIA has not been given to her. I direct the AO to look into this, and allow deduction, if due. With regard to the grounds relating to initiation of penalty, I refuse to adjudicate since penalty is yet to be imposed. I have however no hesitation in dismissing the rest of the grounds. Appeal is partly allowed.”
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO added a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- for the loan taken from her father through bank as bogus loan liability. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was admitted in the hospital during the entire period and proper submissions could not be made and the addition was confirmed by CIT as well. The documents of illness were also filed but the appeal was dismissed.
The Ld. DR submitted that video conference was available to the assessee. The Ld. AR countered that the request for physical hearing was not allowed. I.T.A. No.: 904/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rituparna Biswas.
We have heard the rival submissions. We find that at both the stages of assessment order before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal, proper representation was not made on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remitted to the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has evidence and documents for the relief claimed while the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the appeal may be dismissed. After considering the rival submissions and the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play that another opportunity needs to be provided to the assessee to represent her case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the appeal to him to be decided afresh, who shall allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also grant an opportunity of representing the case and to be heard to the Ld. AO as per rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law. For statistical purposes, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th June, 2025. [Pradip Kumar Choubey] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 30.06.2025 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No.: 904/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rituparna Biswas. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Rituparna Biswas, 67B, Banerjee Para Road, Sarsuna, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700061. 2. ITO, Ward 26(4), Kolkata.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order