RIPAN HALDER,RAJARHAT vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(4), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the assessee. Noting the assessee's inconsistent claims before the AO and the ITAT, and the absence of any presentation before the CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, advising the assessee to cooperate.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 195 days, citing neurological disorders and late awareness of proceedings. The appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO due to a significant discrepancy between turnover in Form 26AS and the Income Tax Return, as well as an addition for subscription. The assessee claimed the discrepancy was due to advances received in prior years and already taxed.
What were the issues?
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of additions made by AO for turnover discrepancy between Form 26AS and ITR; and proper adjudication by CIT(A) when assessee did not present facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Ripan Halder, Adarshapally, Gouranganagar, Raharhat - 700059 [PAN: ACDPH1193E] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(4), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre, Utarapan Complex, DS-IV, Kolkata - 700067 ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of concluding the hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.03.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The ITAT Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 195 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condoning the same as under:
“The impugned Order-In-Appeal passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062233470(1) dated 08.03.2024. Therefore, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 08.05.2024 (within 60 days from the date of communication of the order) as per provisions of the Act. However, the appeal is being filed beyond the appealable period by delay of approximately 195 days due to the following reason: The assessee is a serious patient of neurological disorders and is under rigorous treatment of medicines and furthermore the appellant became aware of such proceedings when a letter for penalty against the order was received by the appellant.
Ripan Halder Copy of Medical Certificate is attached here in the application. Prayer It is therefore prayed that delay of 195 days in filing appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal of the appellant may kindly be admitted for proper judicial remedy.” 1.1 Considering the reasons for delay as mentioned above, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
This appeal arises from order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter ‘the Act] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai, dated 08.03.2024.
2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO noticed that there was a considerable difference between the figure of turnover as per Form 26AS (Rs. 1,68,27,074/-) and the figure disclosed in the return of income (Rs. 95,26,173/-). Therefore, the Ld. AO estimated profit after adding 8% of this allegedly suppressed turnover and made the addition of Rs. 6,01,352/-. The Ld. AO also added an amount of Rs. 1000/- which was claimed as some kind of subscription.
2.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the CIT(A), where in spite of several opportunities, he did not make any presentation of facts. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the additions.
2.3 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:
“1) That the Assessing Officer, erred in fact and circumstances of the case by passing the impugned order as turnover declared in FORM 26AS is for the payment shown by the debtors for the said year, where in actual fact, such payments were received in advance in previous two years and such advances were already considered for taxable turnover by the appellant. 2) That the Assessing Officer, erred in fact and circumstances of the case by passing the impugned order, as he failed to consider that the turnover declared in previous 2 years is more than the amount shown in 26AS and such payments were received in advance and the appellant had already the same to tax for the respective years.”
3.1 We have carefully examined the documents before us and also heard the Ld. DR at length, who while relying on the orders of authorities below, assisted the Bench in going through the documents pertaining to this case.
3.2 It is seen that there is a claim by the assessee regarding the fact that some quantum of the turnover is allegedly pertaining to earlier years’ income. However, it is seen that before the Ld. AO, the assessee had taken a different stand and stated that the figure of Rs. 93,10,173/- was erroneously shown instead of figure as per 26AS. We find that there is a remarkable difference between the stand taken before the Ld. AO and the stand visible from the grounds of appeal etc. (supra). However, it is also the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) did not have the benefit of any presentation from the assessee’s side to enable arriving at any conclusion regarding the factual position of this matter. Accordingly, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this case to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to respond promptly to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in the case.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 03.03.2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
