MUKUL BANERJEE,PANDUAH V. ITO, WARD 24(1), , HOOGHLY

ITA 1352/KOL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mukul Banerjee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially time-barred by 2581 days, for which the assessee filed a condonation petition citing lack of awareness of the appellate order due to non-receipt of the physical order. The Tribunal found the reason for the delay reasonable and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits. The main contention during the hearing was the exparte nature of the previous order by CIT(A), which the assessee argued did not afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, subject to the payment of a cost by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782743 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 1352/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2011-2012) Mukul Banerjee 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member & Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1352/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mukul Banerjee,…………………………….,…Appellant Village-Panduah, Dighir Par West, Panduah-712149, Hooghly, West Bengal [PAN:AGLPB8687P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-24(1), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712102, W.B. Appearances by: Shri Promit Majumdar, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Sandip Sarkar, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: October 28, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: October 28, 2025 O R D E R Per George Mathan, Judicial Member:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata in Appeal No. 150/CIT(A)-6/Kol/2015-16 dated 22nd March, 2018 for the assessment year 2011-12. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1352/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2011-2012) Mukul Banerjee 2 2. Shri Promit Majumdar, ld. A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sarkar, ld. JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The appeal is time barred by 2581 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supported with affidavit stating that the assessee was unaware of the appellate order being passed by the ld. CIT(A) as the physical order has not been received. It is stated that only when the assessee enquired about the status of appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) from the practitioner then same order and notices were located in the income tax portal. Thereafter, immediately, the assessee contacted the tax advocate and filed the appeal. It is stated that due to this factor, the appeal was delayed. There was no malafide intention in not filing the appeal within the time. 4. The assessee has filed a letter dated 28th October, 2025, which reads as under:- “I Promit Majumdar, Legal Representative, of the appellant, Shri Mukul Banerjee, submits that the appellant is willing to pay and bear a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-five thousand) to the authority/Department as instructed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. The above declaration is made voluntarily and willing accepting the fact that there was a considerable and unexplained delay in filing the appeal”. 5. We have gone through the averments made in the affidavit and thus, we are of the opinion that the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay of 2581 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1352/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2011-2012) Mukul Banerjee 3 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. He also submitted that the assessment order has been passed u/s.147/143(3) of the Act due to non-compliance from the side of the assessee. He requested to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. On the other hand, ld. Sr DR opposed to the prayer of ld. AR of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the ld. CTI(A) has given several notices as is evident from the page 1 & 2 of the order and there was no response to the notices by the assessee to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Before us, ld. AR undertakes that the assessee will cooperate the proceedings, if the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. However, in the interest of justice, and so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld. AO for re-adjudication subject to the cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) to the assessee for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which is only payable to Legal Aid Services, 3rd floor of Centenary Building, Calcutta High Court , Kolkata- 700001 within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay, the abovementioned Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 1352/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2011-2012) Mukul Banerjee 4 cost within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall stands confirmed. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra) (George Mathan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Kolkata, the 28th day of October, 2025 Copies to :(1) Mukul Banerjee, Village-Panduah, Dighir Par West, Panduah-712149, Hooghly, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(1), Hooghly, Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly-712102, W.B. (3) CIT(Appeals)-6, Kolkata; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com "