DIPANSHU GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2448/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 April 2025AY 2015-1610 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18, finding that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, including issues with his tax consultant and personal circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have proper representation before the AO or the CIT(A). For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) accepted the justification for the delay but did not consider it sufficient for non-compliance. For AY 2017-18, the CIT(A) condoned the delay but dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. Considering the lack of proper representation and the ex-parte nature of the orders, the Tribunal set aside the assessment orders of the AO for both assessment years and directed the AO to make fresh assessments de novo. The assessee was granted an opportunity of being heard. The grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the initiation of reassessment proceedings, as the matter was remanded for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dipanshu Gupta, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2017-18. These appeals were filed after a delay of 119 days and 66 days, respectively. The assessee attributed the delay to issues with his tax consultant, personal legal troubles, and lack of conversance with income tax matters. The assessment orders under challenge were passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 (dated 25.03.2022) and AY 2017-18 (dated 27.03.2022). The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders for both assessment years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT for AY 2015-16 (66 days) and AY 2017-18 (119 days) is liable to be condoned? The assessee contended that the delay was caused by his tax consultant's non-cooperation, personal legal issues, and his own lack of understanding of tax matters. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on the delay in the provided text. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders for AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18 without going into the merits of the case? The assessee argued that the orders were passed ex-parte. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act by the AO for AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18? The assessee contended that the initiation was erroneous. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act for AY 2015-16 (Rs. 53,87,175/-) and AY 2017-18 (Rs. 4,84,23,000/-)? The assessee argued that the additions were made without considering contra entries and accepted commission income without basis. The revenue did not record any specific arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 143(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c),Section 71AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

order : April 23rd, 2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2015-16 & AY 2017-18 dated 29.07.2024 & 07.06.2024, which have been passed against the assessment orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.03.2022 & 27.03.2022, respectively.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →