NADIA PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE,NADIA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 41(1),, NADIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1669/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 February 2026AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, was of the considered view that the issue requires fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh on merits. The CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A) and furnish all relevant evidence in support of its claim. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the allowability of the expenditure claim but remanded it for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nadia Primary Teachers Training Institute, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a claim of expenditure amounting to ₹33,02,130, purportedly incurred for charitable/religious purposes in India, due to a lack of supporting evidence. This resulted in an addition of ₹33,02,130 and the determination of total income at ₹38,28,137. An application for rectification was filed but not considered. The assessee appealed to the NFAC, Delhi (CIT(A)), which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and failure to appear on the hearing date. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, Kolkata, admitting a delay of 298 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the NFAC (CIT(A)) erred in dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance and non-appearance, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim of expenditure under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee contended that it could not properly represent its case earlier and sought one more opportunity to present evidence supporting its expenditure claim. The revenue, through the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR), supported the orders of the lower authorities, implying that the dismissal by the CIT(A) was justified due to the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(4),Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’? BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nadia Primary Teachers Training Institute......…………………....Appellant 170, Don Bosco Road 170, Don Bosco Road, Austin House, Krishnagar, Nadia-741302.. [PAN: AABAN7365H] vs. ITO, Ward-41(1), Nadia.....…….……....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri C M Roy, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 05, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : February 06, 2026 आदेश / ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.07.2024 of the 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”).

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that there was a delay of 298 days in filing the appeal. After considering the explanation furnished and being satisfied that sufficient cause existed, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014–15 under section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, intimation was issued under section 143(1) of the Act. While processing the return, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee’s claim of expenditure amounting to ₹33,02,130, stated to have been incurred towards charitable/religious purposes in India, on the ground that no supporting evidence was furnished in substantiation of the claim. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹38,28,137 by making an addition of ₹33,02,130. Aganist which, the assessee filed an application for rectification, which, however, was not considered.

4.

Aggrieved by the above order assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, observing that the assessee failed to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer and did not appear on the date fixed for hearing.

5.

Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not properly represent its case earlier and prayed that one more opportunity be granted to substantiate the claim of expenditure with necessary evidence. On the other hand, the learned DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, the issue requires fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh on merits, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and to furnish all relevant evidence in support of his claim. Needless to say, the learned CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

I.T.A. No.1669/Kol/2025

More judgments on Section 139(4)

All 902 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →