SANDHYA DAS,SILIGURI vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX, SILIGURI

ITA 2472/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 January 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal was for bonafide and genuine reasons and therefore condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had two PANs due to a mistake where a new PAN was applied for instead of obtaining a duplicate of the misplaced PAN. The AO had noted significant credits in a bank account linked to one PAN (AHDED1535B) for which no return was filed, while the assessee had filed a return with another PAN (ADVPDO925B). The Tribunal opined that this situation, involving double PANs and credits in a bank account without a corresponding return, required examination at the AO's level for proper reconciliation and verification to bring the correct income to tax. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. No specific amount was decided, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sandhya Das, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed 60 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The assessee's counsel explained the delay, and the Revenue's representative did not object. The ITAT condoned the delay, deeming the reasons bonafide. The core issue arose because the assessee possessed two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) due to a clerical error by her counsel. One PAN (AHDED1535B) was associated with a bank account where credits of ₹22,91,69,653/- were observed, including cash deposits of ₹32,39,000/- during the demonetization period. The assessee had not filed a return of income linked to this PAN. The other PAN (ADVPDO925B) was used to file the return of income. The assessee was engaged in business, depositing sale proceeds into the bank account.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condonable, considering the reasons provided. 2. Whether the issue of the assessee having two PANs, leading to unexplained credits in one bank account and a discrepancy in filing returns, requires further examination by the Assessing Officer (AO). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee's counsel explained that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a mistake by the counsel, where a fresh PAN was applied for instead of re-applying for a misplaced PAN card. This led to the assessee having two PANs. The assessee was carrying on business and depositing sale proceeds into the bank account associated with the first PAN. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. The assessment order noted credits in the bank account linked to PAN AHDED1535B, for which no return of income was filed. The Revenue likely contended that the credits were unexplained and taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned as being the subject of dispute or decision, beyond the general framework of assessment and appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Shaha, AR

For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Hearing: 06.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.05.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 60 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee was having double Permanent Account Number by mistake of the counsel. The PAN Card of the assessee was mis-placed and the consultant of the assessee applied for fresh PAN in stead of re- applying for the copy of the PAN Card misplaced. The ld. AO noted

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2026.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →