PAPIA SAHA,KALYANI, NADIA V. I.T.O., WARD - 41(3), NADIA

ITA 2998/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Papia Saha, who during the demonetization period, deposited a substantial amount of cash in two bank accounts. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated these deposits as unexplained money due to the assessee's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation or comply with notices. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(Appeals) was initially dismissed due to an inordinate delay in filing, which was not condoned. The ITAT, considering the circumstances and the principle of natural justice, provided another opportunity to the assessee to present her case, emphasizing the need for a decision based on the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846089 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 2998/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Papia Saha 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 2998/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Papia Saha,……………………………….…...…Appellant Haringhata, Nagarukhra, Kalyani, Nadia-741257, W.B. [PAN:ADIPL9983A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………....Respondent Ward-41(3), Nadia, House of Goutam Das, Ananta Hari Mitra Road, Nadiarpara, Nadia, Krishna Nagar-741101, West Bengal Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: February 23, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: March 27, 2026 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.10.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2017-2018. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2998/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Papia Saha 2 2. Facts in brief are that during demonetization period, an amount of Rs.49,07,400/- was deposited in cash (Rs.16,26,500/- in the bank account of SBI, Nagarukhra Branch, Nadia and Rs.32,80,900/- in the bank account of UBI, Nagarukhra Branch, Nadia) by the assessee. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income in appropriate form as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 on or before 31.03.2018. The assessee failed to submit the return of income and subsequently a show cause notice was issued to the assessee requesting to explain the source of such cash deposits during FY as well as the demonetization period and also asked as to why the best judgment assessment u/s. 144(1)(b) of the Act will not be passed and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) will not be initiated in her case. The assessee failed to comply with the notices and failed furnish details. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.49,07,400/- as unexplained money. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The appeal is time barred by 1940 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay decided the appeal on merits as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay for non-filing of condonation petition within the specified time limit before him in conformity with the provisions of section 249(3) of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2998/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Papia Saha 3 the Act as well as non-submission of any documentary evidence in support of her claim. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and due to misconception of the provisions of law and having not appreciated the same properly by the accountant entrusted with the job. Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). But the ld. CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated by the assesse i.e. misconception of the provisions of law, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 1940 days. 5. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit, rather dismissed it saying that since the inordinate delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, consequently the appeal of the appellant becomes non-est and therefore the same is not admitted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2998/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Papia Saha 4 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench to give one opportunity to substantiate her claim. 7. It was the submission of the ld. Departmental Representative that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant. The ld. D.R. pleaded to uphold the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. I have perused the material available on record. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to decide the case on merit. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him and to decide the issue afresh on merit. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co- operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2998/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Papia Saha 5 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 27th day of March, 2026 Copies to :(1) Papia Saha, Haringhata, Nagarukhra, Kalyani, Nadia-741257, W.B. (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3), Nadia, House of Goutam Das, Ananta Hari Mitra Road, Nadiarpara, Nadia, Krishna Nagar-741101, West Bengal (3) CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha Printed from counselvise.com "