BINOD MOKTAN,KALIMPONG V. ITO, WARD-3(4), KALIMPONG

ITA 353/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Binod Moktan, the appellant, who received contractual receipts from M/s. Gajmer Works during the assessment year 2018-19, on which TDS was deducted. However, the appellant did not file a return for the said year, leading to proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer assessed the income significantly higher than declared by the appellant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 130 days in filing, without adequately addressing the reasons for the delay provided by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the application for condonation of delay and the reasons provided therein, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711933 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Binod Moktan……...……………………..…………………....Appellant Upper Pedong, P.O Pedong, Kalimpong District, W.B. 734311. [PAN: ARIPM6300Q] vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Kalimpong……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 21, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 17.12.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee had received contractual receipts of Rs.51,04,000 from M/s. Gajmer Works during the A.Y. 2018-19 and Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs.54,040/- was also made on the said receipts. However, the assessee did not file its return of income for the said assessment year. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued. In response, the assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs.4,92,770/-. However, the Assessing Officer completed the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Binod Moktan 2 assessment by determining the total income at Rs.74,64,042/-, after making an addition of Rs.69,71,272/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay of 130 days in filing the appeal, holding that no sufficient cause was made out for condonation of the delay 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, despite the assessee having filed an application for condonation stating valid reasons for the delay. It is argued that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits, and the principles of natural justice require that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), however, supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the delay was inordinate and not properly explained. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the e appeal of the assessee in limine, solely on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of 130 days, which according to the ld. CIT(A), was not satisfactorily explained. However, the record shows that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with reasons for the delay. The CIT(A), however, did not record a speaking order or provide any discussion on whether the reasons furnished constituted \"sufficient cause\" within the meaning of Section 249(3) of the Act. It is a well-settled law that when the assessee demonstrates bona fide reasons and there is no mala fide intent or deliberate delay, the appellate authority should adopt a liberal and Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.353/Kol/2025 Binod Moktan 3 justice-oriented approach to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. In the present case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A), with a direction to consider the appeal of assessee after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to reconsider the assessee's appeal by condoning the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions are kept open. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Kolkata, the 22nd July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 22.07.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com "