DILIP KUMAR PRAMANIK,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1579/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Dilip Kumar Pramanik against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning penalties and assessments for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The primary issues revolved around the non-compliance with notices under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent penalties imposed. The Tribunal noted the delays in filing appeals were due to genuine reasons, including the appellant's health issues and lack of proper communication about the notices and orders. The Tribunal found that the appellant's consultant failed to inform him about the notices and orders, leading to non-compliance and delayed appeals. The Tribunal decided to remand the cases for a fresh examination on merits, emphasizing the need to consider the appellant's circumstances and the substantive issues of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791184 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• 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; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 273B

Judgement Text

"The IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik Vs. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFPPP6455E Appearances: Assessee represented by : Ramesh Patodia, Advocate and Sonal Agarwal, Advocate. Department represented by : Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 18-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-December-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: All these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders 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 2018-19 dated 21.11.2024 and 22.05.2025, respectively. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal in ITA No. 1580/KOL/2025 is barred by limitation by 168 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the order of dismissal of the first appellate authority was only sent on email id of the consultant and the assessee had no knowledge whatsoever of the order having been passed and the assessee came to know about the order only when the subsequent orders of the first appellate authority regarding penalties under Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act were Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. brought to the notice of the assessee. After perusing the petition seeking condonation of delay, 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. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 1579/KOL/2025: “I. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the \"Appellate Authority\") erred in dismissing the appeal which has been filed by the appellant in relation to penalty of Rs. 30,000/- which was imposed under Section 272(A)(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") in view of non- compliance to the notices under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 7th November, 2022, 28th November, 2022 and 16th December, 2022 even though non-compliance to various notices was on account of reasonable cause in terms of the provisions of Section 273B of the Act and as such the order of the Learned Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Act dated 22nd May, 2025 is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. II. FOR THAT the appellant had no notice whatsoever of the notices which had been fixed for hearing of the appellate proceedings as the said notices were sent on the email id of the consultant of the appellant who failed to inform the appellant regarding such notices having been received and this being the case the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various ailments could not attend to such notices and such non-appearance was genuine and on account of bona fide reasons and thus the appeal which was filed by the appellant may be heard on merits and this Hon'ble Tribunal taking sympathetical view of the matter may direct the Learned Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits. III. FOR THAT the appellant admittedly is a very senior citizen and is not very conversant with the electronic interface of the Income Tax Department and is wholly dependent on consultants and/or outside agencies and this being the case the non-compliance if any on account of the appellant before the Learned Appellate Authority was absolutely on account of genuine and reasonable cause and hence the order of the Learned Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal has to be quashed and/or set aside. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. IV. FOR THAT in any event the appellant had filed detailed statement of facts from which the reasons for non-compliance to the notices being available, the Learned Appellate Authority should have considered such statement of facts while deciding the appeal and the same having not been done, the order of the Learned Appellate Authority dated 22nd May, 2025 should be quashed and/or set aside. V. FOR THAT the said impugned order dated 22nd May, 2025 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority is otherwise erroneous in law and/or on facts and is liable to be set aside. VI. FOR THAT the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend, alter and/or modify the Grounds of Appeal on or before the hearing of this appeal.” II. ITA No. 1580/KOL/2025: “I. FOR THAT the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the \"Appellate Authority\") under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 21st November, 2024 in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 without considering the petition for condonation of delay of 157 days which was filed by the appellant before the Learned Appellate Authority by holding that there being no sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 249 of the Act is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal and as such the order of the Learned Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Act dated 21st November, 2024 is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. II. FOR THAT the appellant having no communication of the order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023 having been passed as the same was only served on the consultant of the appellant, the non-compliance of the order regarding filing of appeal within the mandatory period of 30 days before the Learned Appellate Authority was genuine and there was reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the time as prescribed and as such the order dated 21st November, 2024 of the Learned Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. III. FOR THAT the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various deceases including on account of the fact that the appellant was required to travel to Hyderabad in connection with eye operation of his wife and the said fact was duly submitted before the first Appellate Authority for the purpose of considering the delay that was caused in not filing the appeal within the time prescribed, such being the case the order dated 21st November, 2024 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority is absolutely Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal and hence the said order is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. IV. FOR THAT the appellant not being very conversant with the electronic interface of the Income Tax Department cannot be penalised on account of not responding to the various notices as the appellant had no notice whatsoever of such notices having been issued and as such this Hon'ble Tribunal should consider the matter sympathetically particularly when the appellant had discharged the applicable tax as per law by paying a sum more than Rs. 7.5 lacs as tax in the return of income which was filed by the appellant. V. FOR THAT the said impugned order dated 21st November, 2024 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority is otherwise erroneous in law and/or on facts and is liable to be set aside. VI. FOR THAT the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend, alter and/or modify the Grounds of Appeal on or before the hearing of this appeal.” III. ITA No. 1581/KOL/2025: “I. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the \"Appellate Authority\") erred in dismissing the appeal which has been filed by the appellant in relation to penalty of Rs. 10,71,200/- which was imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") in view of non- compliance to the notices issued under Section 250 of the Act even though non-compliance to various notices was on account of reasonable cause in terms of the provisions of Section 273B of the Act and as such the order of the Learned Appellate Authority under Section 250 of the Act dated 22nd May, 2025 is liable to be quashed and/or set aside. II. FOR THAT the appellant had no notice whatsoever of the notices which had been fixed for hearing of the appellate proceedings as the said notices were sent on the email id of the consultant of the appellant who failed to inform the appellant regarding such notices having been received and this being the case the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various ailments could not attend to such notices and such non-appearance was genuine and on account of bona fide reasons and thus the appeal which was filed by the appellant may be heard on merits and this Hon'ble Tribunal taking sympathetical view of the matter may direct the Learned Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits. III. FOR THAT the appellant admittedly is a very senior citizen and is not very conversant with the electronic interface of the Income Tax Department and is wholly dependent on consultants and/or outside agencies and this Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. being the case the non-compliance if any on account of the appellant before the Learned Appellate Authority was absolutely on account of genuine and reasonable cause and hence the order of the Learned Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal has to be quashed and/or set aside. IV. FOR THAT in any event the appellant had filed detailed statement of facts from which the reasons for non-compliance to the notices being available, the Learned Appellate Authority should have considered such statement of facts while deciding the appeal and the same having not been done, the order of the Learned Appellate Authority dated 22nd May, 2025 should be quashed and/or set aside. V. FOR THAT the said impugned order dated 22nd May, 2025 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority is otherwise erroneous in law and/or on facts and is liable to be set aside. VI. FOR THAT the appellant craves indulgence to add, amend, alter and/or modify the Grounds of Appeal on or before the hearing of this appeal.” 3. We will first take up ITA No. 1580/KOL/2025 for adjudication as the same relates to quantum appeal and the other two are relating to penalties. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 25.07.2018 declaring total income of ₹30,61,060/-. On perusal of the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022, it was noticed that the assessee had sold a residential property on 27.07.2017 amounting to ₹52,00,000/-. In the said property, the assessee's share was ₹17,33,334/-, which was not disclosed in the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, the assessee's case was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') added the amount of ₹17,33,334/- being the share of the assessee to the returned income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. ₹48,04,394/- u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted that there was a delay of 157 days in filing the appeal. He has gone through the judicial pronouncements on condonation of delay. In the course of the appeal, the assessee has stated that the assessee is a senior citizen and unaware of online application/electronic interfaces including email and his spouse was diagnosed with eye disease and for the same he had to travel to a hospital situated in Hyderabad on multiple occasions (medical certificates had also been enclosed) but the same was not considered as a sufficient cause and the appeal was dismissed on account of delay as it was filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It is stated that the affidavit has been filed for condonation of delay of 169 days which is as under: “1. The appellant herein has filed appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal against order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") dated 21st November, 2024 which appeal was filed by the appellant against the original order under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 20th February, 2023. 2. The appeal was dismissed by the Learned Appellate Authority on grounds of delay in filing the appeal before the first Appellate Authority. 3. The delay in filing the appeal before the first Appellate Authority was on account of genuine and bona fide reasons. However, without considering such reasons Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. 4. The order of dismissal of the Learned Appellate Authority was only sent on email id of the consultant and the appellant had no knowledge whatsoever of the order having been passed and the appellant came to know about the order having been passed only when the subsequent order Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. of the first Appellate Authority regarding penalty under Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act were brought to the notice of the appellant and immediately upon receiving such orders the appellant got in touch with the consultant on whose email id the same was sent and it was found that there was non-compliance to the notices which were issued. 5. The appellant in this regard is willing to submit an affidavit of the consultant verifying the aforesaid facts. 6. In view of the above the appellant submits that the appeal which is related to addition on account of purported escapement of income amounting to Rs 17,33,334/- even though such income is already included in the return of income which was originally filed by the appellant within the due date as prescribed and the applicable tax has already been paid would amount to addition of same income twice and the appellant being a very senior citizen suffering from various deceases including the wife of the appellant who had undergone eye operation at Hyderabad, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the petition which has been filed herein for condonation of delay is not considered and the appeal which is filed herein is not considered on merits. 7. The appellant submits that there has been no latches or negligence on part of the appellant in pursuing its appeal and the entire delay is unintentional, and the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and prejudice if the delay is not condoned. 8. The present application is being filed after a delay of 169... days which delay was caused because of the genuine and bona fide reason as above and the appellant most humbly submits that the application be heard on merits, after condoning the inordinate delay, to meet the ends of justice. 9. The appellant states and submits that from the aforesaid it would be clear and evident that at no point of time the appellant had any intention to resort to dilatory tactics and/or act in a manner which is not bona fide in the instant case. The delay that has been caused has been due to circumstances which occurred, and which were completely unintended and beyond the control of the appellant. There has been no culpable and/or mala fide negligence on the part of the appellant in the instant case. 10. The appellant further states and submits that in the premises unless the delay in filing the application is condoned by Your Honour, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. As such refusing to condone the delay would result in penalising the appellant for the delay which has occurred in the peculiar and unexpected circumstances/reasons over which the appellant had no control, resulting in turn to grave injustice. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. 11. This application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.” 6. A perusal of the affidavit filed for condonation of delay before the Tribunal in which also contains reasons for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the delay in filing the appeal was genuine and for bona fide reasons. However, without considering such reasons, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is stated that the order of dismissal of the appellate authority was only sent on the email ID of the consultant and the assessee had no knowledge whatsoever of the order passed and when the assessee got in touch with the assessee’s consultant on whose email ID the dismissal order was sent, it was found that there was non-compliance to the notices issued. It was stated that the appeal is related to the addition on account of purported escapement of income amounting to ₹17,33,334/- even though such income is already included in the return of income which was originally filed by the assessee within the due date as prescribed and the applicable tax has already been paid and the same would amount to addition of the same income twice. 7. We have considered the affidavit and find that the compliance could not be made on account of lack of communication between the consultant and the assessee as well as the illness of the spouse of the assessee. Thus, there was sufficient cause for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) who ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the appeal to him to adjudicate the same on merits after considering the submission of the assessee. 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 and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. and an opportunity of being heard may be provided to the Ld. AO, if required. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since the appeals in ITA Nos. 1579 & 1581/KOL/2025 relate to the default during the assessment proceeding and the income computed in the assessment order and the same were also dismissed either on account of delay or for not providing evidence in support of the relief claimed, therefore, in the interest of justice, both these appeals are also set aside and remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering the fate of the quantum appeal in ITA No. 1580/KOL/2025. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in these two appeals are also partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 09.12.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA Nos.: 1579, 1580 & 1581/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dilip Kumar Pramanik. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Dilip Kumar Pramanik, 183, Kanuno Park, Garia S.O., Kolkata, West Bengal, 700084. 2. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata. 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 "