SANOWAR ALI KHAN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 1503/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 January 2026AY 2022-2023Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the same. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex parte and that the assessee may not have had a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2022-23 was filed with a delay of 192 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving notices and ex-parte assessment proceedings. The assessment involved additions for financial transactions and unexplained expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is barred by limitation and whether the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity for a proper hearing before the lower authorities, especially when the proceedings were ex parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 282,Section 271AAC(1),Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 68,Section 142(1),Section 142(2),Section 142(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-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’) for AY 2022-23 dated 30.10.2024. The assessee sought adjournment which was rejected as there was no justification for the same.

1.1.

The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 192 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the assessee was not in a position to take note of the date of hearing stated to be fixed on 11.09.2024, 19.09.2024 & 07.10.2024. E

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 282

All 613 judgments and leading authorities on Section 282 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →