JATIN KHARA,KOLKATA V. ITO WARD-30(1)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 2299/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Jatin Khara, who appealed against the decision of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-30(1), Kolkata, which enhanced his income assessment from Rs. 23,94,380 to Rs. 36,53,150 by denying a claim under section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was rejected due to a delay of 230 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The assessee argued that the delay was due to inadequate tax advice. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the substantive merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470756 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 250; 143(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2299/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year 2020-21) Jatin Khara, 74, Sarat Bose Road, Bhawanipur, Kolkata - 700025 [PAN: ASDPK2651E] .....................…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Dakshin 2, Gariahat Road, (South), Kolkata - 700068 ...............…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Gautam Patra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of concluding the hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 03.03.2025 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present appeal arises from order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Mumbai [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO, CPC is seen to have enhanced the income from Rs. 23,94,380/- to Rs. 36,53,150/-. This was done by denying the claim u/s 10(2A) of the Act. Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. AO, the matter was carried in first appeal admittedly with a delay of 230 days. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on several authorities and refused to condone the said delay. 2 ITA No. 2299/Kol/2024 Jatin Khara 1.2 Further, aggrieved with this action of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. THAT the CPC Bangalore processed my return u/s. 143(1) and assessed my income of Rs. 36,53,150/- instead of my return income of Rs. 23,94,380/- without any reason and disallow my claim u/s. 10(2A). Against the intimation I preferred the appeal before the CIT (A). AddL/JCIT (A)-6, Mumbai rejected my appeal without going through the facts and merits of the case. 2. Sir, during the year I have received \"Profit from Partnership Firm\" of Rs. 12,58,770-As per section 10(2A) share of profit from partnership firm is exempt from income tax in the hands of the Partner, but at the time of processing my return, this profit was treated (from partnership firm) as a business profit and imposed the tax on the above profit without any reason. 3. Further Sir, delay filing of appeal due to the reason that, there is no proper advice by my tax consultants. Add/ JCIT without going the facts and merits of the case just rejected my appeal. 4. That any other grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed at the time of hearing.” 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to hear the appeal with the help of Ld. DR. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the assessee’s contention that due to non- availability of proper tax advice, he could not file the said appeal. On a careful consideration of the facts in this case it is clear that there was no reason available with the Ld. CIT(A) to reject the appeal on the ground that there was a delay. It is a settled position that an assessee should have recourse to substantive justice and it is only in extenuating circumstances should the delay be not condoned. In this case, we find that the assessee deserves a chance to establish his case before the first appellate authority and hence we condone the delay in filing of first appeal and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the case on its merit. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 03.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Sanjay Awasthi) Judicial Member Accountant Member 3 ITA No. 2299/Kol/2024 Jatin Khara Dated: 03.03.2025 AK, P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Jatin Khara 2. Income Tax Officer,Ward-30(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "