DIPTAM CHAKRABORTY,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 61(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2596/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Diptam Chakraborty, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The primary issue was the addition of \\u20b958,87,200 to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2016-17, which was allegedly the capital gain from the sale of immovable property that the assessee did not disclose. The AO had issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee failed to comply with, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to delay, which the assessee attributed to unawareness of the notice and ongoing proceedings under section 154 of the Act regarding the same issue. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and decided to condone it, restoring the matter to the AO for further verification.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668951 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: A.B. MATRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, AM ITA No. 2596/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Diptam Chakraborty 1/2/1 Paikpara Row, Kolkata-700037, West Bengal Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward 61(1), Bamboo villa, Kolkata-700014 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AHGPC4788C Assessee by : Shri A.B. Matra, AR Revenue by : Ms. Archana Gupta, DR Date of hearing: 18.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070767692(1) dated 29.11.2024 for the AY 2016-17. 02. Shri A.B. Matra appeared on behalf of the assessee and Ms. Archana Gupta appeared on behalf of the revenue. 03. It was the submission by the ld. AR that the assessee had filed its return of income on 20.07.2016. It was submitted that as per the AO the assessee had sold immovable property for ₹58,87,200/- and received capital gain but did not disclose the capital gain tax payable on the sale receipt. It was submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued but the assessee did not comply with the notices. Accordingly, addition of Page | 2 ITA No. 2596/KOL/2024 Diptam Chakraborty; A.Y. 2016-17 ₹58,87,200/- has been made to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein the impugned order shows that the ld. CIT (A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted the reasons for delay that he was not aware of the notice issued even though the notices were on the portal. Further, it was the submission by the ld. AR that the ld. AO has made an addition in respect of sale of property which the assessee has not done but in fact the assessee had purchased a property along with his parents. It was also submission that the assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the ld. AO and this was also the reason for delay. 04. The fact that the assessee has adopted an alternative remedy for filing application u/s 154 and the same have not been disposed off even till today gives strength to the reasonable cause submitted by the assessee for the delay in fling the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) is condoned and the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the AO for verification as to whether the assessee has purchased the property or sold the property. If the assessee is able to show that he has not sold any property then obviously no addition is called for. 05. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated:23.06.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Page | 3 ITA No. 2596/KOL/2024 Diptam Chakraborty; A.Y. 2016-17 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "