GOPALCHANDRA BAGUI,HOWRAH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOMETAX DEPARTMENT
Facts
The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 453 days. The assessee claimed that the appeal order was received late by their accountant, leading to the delay. The AO had reopened the assessment u/s 147 and made an addition of ₹50,14,000/- on account of the sale of immovable property, considering the assessee as a non-filer.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was barred by limitation, and if not, whether the addition made by the AO on account of sale of immovable property was justified.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & 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 2015-16 dated 25.06.2025. 1. 1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 8 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appeal order was disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.06.2025 but the assessee came to know about the order from his accountant on 05.07.2025 and the accountant of the assessee also did not know about the passing of the order. Thereafter, the assessee approached an Advocate/Chartered Accountant for drafting and filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. The assessee has submitted that there had been a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal ITA No.: 2064/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gopalchandra Bagui. and there were no deliberate latches on the part of the assessee and such delay was caused mainly for the preparation of drafting. The assessee therefore, has prayed to condone the delay. After perusing the application, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
“1. For that the Learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified in fact and in law in dismissing the appeal in limini on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation though the Appellant being a very low profile individual deserves a liberal approach in as much as the substantial justice warrants the decision of the appeal on merit. II. For that the Learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate that since the addition on the basis of alleged sale of immovable property is absolutely bad in law and in fact there was no sale of immovable property by the appellant during the said financial year 2014-15, the dismissal of the appeal in limini is an abuse of process of law. III. For that the CIT (Appeal) was not justified in law in affirming the assessment order of making addition on the alleged sale of immovable property on the basis of "information available with the department" though no such information was confronted with the appellant and the details of such alleged sale is not reflected in the assessment order and as such the assessment order is null and void since the appellant was not given opportunity to confront with such allegation which is violation of principles of natural justice. IV. For that when the appellant disputed the alleged sale of immovable property which is the foundation of the alleged addition as short term capital gain, the CIT (Appeal) was not justified in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation which has caused serious miscarriage of justice since procedures are hand made of justice. V. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering that the appellant being an individual was dependant on his representative in looking after Income Tax matters and was not aware of the procedure of filing appeal and rigours of ITA No.: 2064/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gopalchandra Bagui. faceless hearing procedures and was not justified in relying on the fact of filing appeal against the penalty order. VI. That the appellant craves leave to add and/or modify any other ground or grounds of Appeal and the time of hearing if necessary.”
Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee was found to have sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of ₹50,14,000/-. The profit on sale of the immovable property was liable to be taxed as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, in previous year relevant to the AY 2015-16 and as the assessee was a non-filer, the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted that the sale proceeds the tune of ₹50,14,000/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. As the assessee had not filed any ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, the Ld. AO regarded the same as the total income of the assessee and assessed the same u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not condone the delay of 453 days in filing the appeal and citing several judicial pronouncements, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay.
Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.
Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee is a low-profile individual and since the income was below taxable limit, no return of income for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 was filed. After 6 ITA No.: 2064/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gopalchandra Bagui. years, the assessment was reopened and the authorized representative had received the notice. It was submitted that the sale did not take place in the same assessment year and requested that a fresh opportunity may be accorded to the assessee and the matter may be remanded to the Ld. AO for examination of the facts of the case.
The Ld. DR on the other hand, drew our attention to the last para on page 8 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that since there was a delay of 453 days before the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed on account of delay and requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld.
We have considered the facts of the case, the submissions made and the documents filed. The assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the delay ought to have been condoned as the assessee was a non-filer for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17. Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), and the entire sale proceeds have been added to the income of the assessee, hence in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.: 2064/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gopalchandra Bagui.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th January, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 28.01.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) ITA No.: 2064/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gopalchandra Bagui. Copy of the order forwarded to:
Gopalchandra Bagui, Uluberia, Jagadishpur, Howrah, West Bengal, 711315. 2. Assessment Unit.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.
Guard File. //// By order
