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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2449/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 April 2025AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessment years, finding that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was in imprisonment from January 2022 to April 2022, which led to his income tax matters being unattended. Furthermore, the demise of his chartered accountant, Mr. K.K. Jha, and the subsequent search for a new consultant contributed to the significant delays. The Tribunal observed that there was no proper representation before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and directed the AO to make fresh assessments de novo for both AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and make further submissions. The grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the confirmation of reassessment proceedings, as the matter was remanded for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dipanshu Gupta, filed appeals before the ITAT against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2017-18. The appeals were filed beyond the prescribed limitation period by 119 days for AY 2017-18 and 66 days for AY 2015-16. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing reasons such as dependency on a tax consultant who became uncooperative, personal legal troubles, and lack of conversance with income tax matters. For AY 2015-16, the assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was passed on March 25, 2022, with an addition of Rs. 53,87,175. For AY 2017-18, the assessment order was passed on March 27, 2022, with an addition of Rs. 4,84,23,000. 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 Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2015-16 (66 days) and AY 2017-18 (119 days) should be condoned on the grounds stated by the assessee. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was caused due to his dependency on a tax consultant who became uncooperative, personal legal issues requiring his concentration, and his lack of conversance with income tax matters. He also mentioned that he only recently became aware of the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without going into the merits of the case for AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18. - Assessee's contention: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred by passing ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act for AY 2015-16 and AY 2017-18. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of reassessment proceedings. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for AY 2015-16 (Rs. 53,87,175) and AY 2017-18 (Rs. 4,84,23,000). - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the huge additions without going into the merits, and that the AO wrongly considered entire bank credits without contra entries and accepted commission income without basis. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

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

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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 →