DEBDAS GHOSH,HOOGHLY V. ITO, WARD 24(1), , HOOGHLY

ITA 1062/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Debdas Ghosh, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal in limine due to a delay of 73 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the appellant's medical conditions, including glaucoma and high blood sugar, which required treatment and recovery time, affecting his ability to respond timely. The original assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) added income from property transactions based on discrepancies between the purchase price and the stamp duty value, which the appellant disputed. The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717569 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राक ेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh Vs. ITO, Ward-24(1), Hooghly (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AINPG1276D Appearances: Assessee represented by : Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate and Suman Bhowmik, AR. Department represented by : Bonnie Debbarma, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 22-July-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12-August-2025 ORDER 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 2020-21 dated 19.03.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 19.09.2022. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, Ld. Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as \"the CIT(A)\") erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, even though there did exist reason and sufficient cause behind the delay of 73 days which was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and the delay was duly explained. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. 2. For that, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay because he failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had been suffering from eye problems due to glaucoma and high blood sugar levels for the past year for which he was under the care and treatment of eye specialist doctor. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. 3. For that, the CIT (A) failed to consider the fact that the appellant was an individual senior citizen looking after all his business operations on his own in the capacity of a sole proprietor and that he was suffering from genuine medical 3-problem which was sufficiently proved by way of prescriptions, diagnostic reports and discharge certificate duly issued after eye surgery. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. 4. For that, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously and without application of mind held that the appellant had failed to explain the delay for the month of December 2022 as the eye surgery was conducted in October 2022 and no cogent evidence had been 3 adduced relating to the month of December 2022. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. 5. For that, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay because he failed to appreciate that in the impugned assessment order the Ld. Assessing Officer had inter alia stated that the order was being passed subject to amendment under section 155(15) as and when the valuation report is received from valuation officer. Therefore, Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. 6. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the rejection order dated 19/03/2025 passed Ld. CIT (Appeals) is without according proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, therefore the same was passed in violation of Principals of Natural Justice and hence Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merit. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. 7. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963. 8. For that the appellant craves leave to add, adduce, alter, amend ground or Grounds of appeal before or at the time of appeal if necessary.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income showing total income of ₹10,48,670/-and the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the return of income as the purchase value of property along with the income disclosed under section 56(2)(x) was substantially less than the value as per the Stamp Authority. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued but uploaded submissions on 09/02/2022 and 13/03/2022, which were examined by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO found that the assessee had purchased Plot No. RS-1901 at Mouza – Parul, P.O. & PS Arambag Dist. Hoogly 712601, WB through four purchase deeds for a consideration that was lower than the stamp duty value determined by the SRO. The aggregate of differences in stamp value vis-a-vis purchase value for the 4 properties amounted to ₹ 85,26,671/-, which was chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘income from other sources’ as per the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Since the difference between the stamp value in the purchase value of all the 4 purchases exceeded the higher of ₹50,000/- and 10% of the consideration, a notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain why the difference should not be added to the total income. The assessee disputed the Stamp valuation and requested the Ld. AO to get the property reevaluated by the Departmental Valuation Officer as per the 3rd proviso to section 56(2)(x) as the property purchased was ‘low land property’ and the value shown was too high with respect to the market value. The Ld. AO referred the property to the Valuation Officer to evaluate the actual value of the four properties purchased by the assessee and passed the assessment order, subject to Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. amendment under section 155(15) as and when the valuation report was received from the Valuation Officer and the income from business was assessed at ₹11,81,588/- and the difference in the purchase price and the value for the purpose of stamp duty was added to the income of the assessee and the total income was determined at ₹95,75,340/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 19/03/2025, dismissed the appeal in limine as the appeal was filed late. The appellant had submitted that he was under the medical treatment for eye conditions, which was conducted in October 2022. But as the delay for the period of December 2022 was not explained satisfactorily, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. Before us the assessee submitted that there existed reason and sufficient cause behind the delay of 73 days which was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and the delay was duly explained, therefore, the order so passed was liable to be set aside and restored back for deciding on merits as the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and he failed to appreciate that the appellant had been suffering from eye problems due to glaucoma and high blood sugar levels for the past year, for he was under the care and treatment of an eye specialist doctor. It is further stated in Ground No. 3 as also in the statement of facts that the assessee is a senior citizen looking after all his business operations on his own in the capacity of the sole proprietor and that he was suffering from a genuine medical problem which was sufficiently Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. proved by way of prescriptions, diagnostic reports and discharge certificate issued after eye surgery and in Ground No. 6 it is disputed that proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee was not allowed. It is also mentioned in the statement of facts that he was also undergoing post-surgery checkups. Since the valuation report was not received, therefore, he was advised to file the appeal and the delay occurred due to ill-health and the belief of the appellant that the impugned assessment order would be amended under section 155(15) of the Act after receipt of the valuation report. The valuation report was obtained sometime in the year 2024. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the assessee to submit by 07/03/2025 the evidences and the reasons for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which were filed on 06/03/2025 along with the hospital discharge certificate. It is stated in the statement of facts that despite having received the requisite evidence and the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded erroneously to hold that the assessee had failed to explain the delay for the month of December 2025. 5. We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Bench was of the view that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and, therefore, the appeal should have been admitted. The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. 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. CIT(A) for disposal of the grounds taken by the assessee on merit, by passing a speaking order as the valuation report was received and apparently no amendment had been done by the Ld. AO. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 12.08.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 I.T.A. No.: 1062/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Debdas Ghosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Debdas Ghosh, Malakarpara, Ward No.3, Arambagh, Hooghly, West Bengal, 712601. 2. ITO, Ward-24(1), Hooghly. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "