ANUPAM SAHA,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PGS. V. ITO, WARD 50(2), KOLKATA

ITA 102/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anupam Saha, the assessee, who faced an addition of Rs.28,03,683 to his income as confirmed by the CIT(A). This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained expenditure. The assessee argued that this amount was already declared as an 8% net profit on gross receipts in his income tax return filed belatedly. The ITAT condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the assessee's serious illness and the failure of his authorized representative to inform him about the appellate order. The tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and admitted the appeal for consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774204 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

"ITA No.102/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 2 | 4 appeal order was never served upon him. It is stated that the user ID and password to get access of the e-filing portal was with the Authorised representative and said A.R. did not inform the assessee about the passing of the appellate order. It was also submitted that during that period, due to his serious illness, he was under treatment in Vellore and could not check up the tax matter with the A.R. It was in this backdrop that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. It is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. Ld Sr DR did not seriously oppose the condition petition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within time. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 349 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only issue raised in the grounds of appeal is against the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.28,03,683/- as made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69C of the Act without considering the provisions of section 44AD under which the assessee has declared 8% net profit of the said amount to tax. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income during the year. Accordingly, notice u/s.142(1) dated 9.3.2018 was issued to the assessee which was duly served upon the assessee requiring the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days. However, no such return was filed. Thereafter, the assessee filed the return of income on 10.12.2019 offering income @ 8% of the gross receipts of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.102/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 4 | 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on /09/2025. (RAJESH KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata : Dated /9/2025 B.k.Parida, , Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Asst.Registrar, Itat, Kolkata 1. The Appellant : Anupam Saha, Habra 1, Vilalge- Sadpur, PO: Maslandapur, Barasat, 24, Pgs North, West Bengal 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer-50(2), Kolkata 3. The ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "