DIPTAM CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 61(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2596/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 June 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), finding reasonable cause. It restored the issues to the AO for re-verification to determine whether the assessee had purchased or sold the property, stating that no addition would be called for if no sale occurred.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was processed, but the AO alleged an undisclosed capital gain of ₹58,87,200/- from the sale of immovable property, issuing a notice under Section 148. Due to non-compliance, the AO made an addition. The assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to delay, despite the assessee claiming they had purchased property, not sold, and had filed a Section 154 application.

What were the issues?

Whether there was reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and whether the AO's addition for undisclosed capital gain from property sale was justified, given the assessee's claim of property purchase.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Matra, AR
For Respondent: Ms. Archana Gupta, DR
Hearing: 18.06.2025Pronounced: 23.06.2025

(Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax officer, Diptam Chakraborty Ward 61(1), 1/2/1 Paikpara Row, Bamboo villa, Kolkata-700014 Vs. Kolkata-700037, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AHGPC4788C Assessee by : Shri A.B. Matra, AR Revenue by : Ms. Archana Gupta, DR Date of hearing: 18.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070767692(1) dated 29.11.2024 for the AY 2016-17.

2.

Shri A.B. Matra appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Archana Gupta appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee had filed its return of income on 20.07.2016. It was submitted that as per the AO the assessee had sold immovable property for ₹58,87,200/- and received capital gain but did not disclose the capital gain tax payable on the sale receipt. It was submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee did not comply with the notices. Accordingly, addition of

4.

The fact that the assessee has adopted an alternative remedy for filing application u/s 154 and the same have not been disposed off even till today gives strength to the reasonable cause submitted by the assessee for the delay in fling the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) is condoned and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the assessee has purchased the property or sold the property. If the assessee is able to show that he has not sold any property then obviously no addition is called for.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →