SHREYA DEY SARKAR,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA V. I.T.O., WARD - 2(4), RAIGANJ, WEST DINAJPUR

ITA 1649/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shreya Dey Sarkar, an individual employed at Amdocs Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd., who appealed against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was the clerical error in reporting her salary income as 4,86,41,526 instead of 3,61,253, leading to an incorrect tax demand of 2,08,52,720. The Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed her appeal solely on the grounds of delay, which was over 3,200 days, without considering the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that the assessee should not be penalized for the clerical error and the mistakes of her tax consultant, and thus remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825145 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, Inder Singh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 INSC 382], Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106], CIT v. S.P. Nayak [(2000) 242 ITR 251 (Kar)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Salary income; TDS; Competent authority; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar Vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Raiganj (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: CYSPS2605B Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 11-November-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 29-December-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2014-15 dated 28.03.2025. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 54 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the appellant being a salaried employee working in the domain of software development, not being aware of the intricacies as far as the domain of taxation is concerned as envisaged by the Income Tax Act, 1961 completely and solely relied upon her consultant/advocate for the purpose of compliance as regards the E- Assessment Scheme, 2021. The assessee has cited the case laws in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 and Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. Inder Singh v. the State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 INSC 382] in support of the condonation of delay and prayed that the short delay of 55 days in filing the appeal may be condoned in the interest of equity and justice. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR THAT the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed under Form 35 solely on the ground of delay in filing, without appreciating the Bonafide reasons for such delay and the merit of the case. 2. FOR THAT the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was purely inadvertent and unintentional, caused due to a clerical mistake in reporting salary income as ₹4,86,41,526 instead of ₹3,61,253, and thus the delay ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. 3. FOR THAT the appellant had placed on record all relevant and verifiable documents such as Form 16, Form 12BA, Form 26AS, and TRACES TDS Certificate which clearly substantiated the correct amount of salary income, but the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same. 4. FOR THAT the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the demand of 2,08,52,720 under Section 143(1) of the Act without adjudicating on the merits of the case, thereby denying the appellant the opportunity of fair hearing and justice. 5. FOR THAT the appellant submits that the error in reporting salary was clerical and bonafide in nature, and there was no mala fide intent or attempt to conceal income, thus the addition is untenable in law and facts. 6. FOR THAT it is settled law that when sufficient cause is shown, technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] held that whereby it has been stated that expression 'sufficient cause' should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. 7. FOR THAT further, in the case of Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [(2001) 9 SCC 106], the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that the length of the delay is immaterial; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. 8. FOR THAT in similar circumstances, various High Courts and the ITAT have held that where the assessee committed an unintentional error, and documentary evidence supported the correct income, the appeal must be adjudicated on merits. 9. FOR THAT the same has been upheld in the case of CIT v. S.P. Nayak [(2000) 242 ITR 251 (Kar)] whereby it has been clarified that clerical error in return is curable when supported by proper records. 10. FOR THAT the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 INSC 382] had clearly indicated that the merit of case can never be discarded solely on technical grounds of limitation. 11. FOR THAT the Ld. Competent Authority by raising such demand had violated the provisions as has been laid down by the CBDT vide its Circular No-014(XL-35) dated 11.04.1955. 12. FOR THAT the appellant prays that in the interest of justice, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to decide the appeal on merits after considering all evidence already on record or submitted afresh. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual working as a salaried employee, thereby drawing its salary from Amdocs Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹4,86,41,526/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru accepting the income returned for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, CPC, Bengaluru, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO'), assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹4,86,41,526/- and issued a demand notice with outstanding tax liability of ₹2,08,52,720/-. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) who perused the statement of facts, Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. grounds of appeal, Form No. 35 and other details available on record and also found that there was a delay of more than 3,200 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) cited several decisions of various Hon'ble Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under: “5.11 In view of the above, respectfully following the judgments given by the Hon'ble Courts cited above, I am of the considered opinion that the Appellant has failed to give the sufficient reason for the delay of filing of appeal. Since the condonation of delay is not granted, the Appeal filed is not maintainable on technical grounds. Under the admitted circumstances, in the present case, the Appellant has failed to substantiate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time frame and failed to explain the unreasonable delay of more than 3200 days satisfactorily. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. 7. It was noted and as mentioned in Ground No. 2 that instead of declaring salary as ₹3,61,253/-, inadvertently and on account of clerical mistake, the salary income of ₹ 4,86,41,256/- was reported. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not decide the merits of the case, but dismissed the appeal on account of delay. The Bench was of the view that the assessee should not be penalised on account of mistakes committed by the tax consultant. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that one more opportunity may be allowed and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and the assessment order may be done afresh and there should be remanded before the Ld. AO who shall allow one more opportunity s of being heard and frame the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. assessment de novo after considering the submission of the assessee is only the real income can be assessed in the assessee should not be penalised on account of clerical errors. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for making the reassessment de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.12.2025 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No.: 1649/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shreya Dey Sarkar. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Shreya Dey Sarkar, Flat No.401, Venkatesh Villa, Rupi Nagar, Phursungi, Pune, Maharashtra, 412308. 2. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Raiganj. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata Printed from counselvise.com "