SAMARESH PAUL,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD 25(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 2574/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Samaresh Paul, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) regarding an assessment for the year 2016-17. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.98,51,000 to the assessee's income, which was deemed to have escaped assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the initial appeal due to a 98-day delay in filing, which the assessee failed to adequately explain. The Tribunal found that the assessee's representative had not properly communicated the issues, leading to an unrepresented appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 475488 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 139(5)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [PAN: AEUPP8135R] vs. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 27, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February 28, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against an order dated 29.10.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 by declaring total income of Rs.7,42,850/-. The assessee thereafter filed his revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act by declaring the same total income. However, it was noticed that the assessee has made property transaction of Rs.98,51,000/- during the F.Y 2015-16 relevant to A.Y 2016-17 which has been escaped within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued followed by notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee did not turn up in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made I.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul 2 the assessment u/s 147/144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.98,51,000/- by assessing total income at Rs.1,05,93,850/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. However, there was delay of 98 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee. The assessee could not explain any proper reason before the ld. CIT(A) for condoning such delay, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal stating that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) was an ex parte order without considering the prayer for condonation of delay, which is not proper. The ld. AR stated that various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were in fact not received by the assessee due to failure on the part of then authorized representative to communicate the assessee. Therefore, in the interests of justice, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so as to the matter may be heard on merits after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR objected the prayer made by the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that such prayer at this stage may not be entertained and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed in limine. 6. We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, find that in the instant case, there was a delay 98 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee could not explain it properly due to failure on the part of the assessee’s representative to properly address the issues involved and the matter remained unrepresented and went against the assessee. We, therefore, in I.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul 3 the interests of justice and fair play, deem it necessary to remand the whole issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to re-examine the issues after condoning the delay of providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply to the notices issued during the remand proceedings without any fail. 7. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 28th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member Dated: 28.02.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Samaresh Paul 2. ITO, Ward-25(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches "