SUMITA ROY CHOWDHURY,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 48(1), KOLKATA

MA 72/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two Miscellaneous Applications filed by Sumita Roy Chowdhury, challenging the additions made to her income for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. The applications pointed out alleged errors in the Tribunal's earlier orders, which had dismissed her appeals as time-barred. The Tribunal reviewed the applications and found no merit in the claims of apparent mistakes in the original orders. It was noted that the assessee had not pursued the matter timely and had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal also addressed a clerical error in the mention of the section under which the assessment was made, confirming it was under section 143(3) and not section 144 as previously stated in some documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785589 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LETTER DATED
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 80IB

Judgement Text

" M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 (arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 Assessment Years: 2009-2010 & 2011-2012 Sumita Roy Chowdhury,………….....…………Applicant C/o. Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate, BF-199, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 [PAN:AHOPR1722P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-48(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances by: Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Applicant/ assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: August 29, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: October 31, 2025 O R D E R The present two Miscellaneous Applications are directed at the instance of assessee pointing out apparent errors in the orders of the Tribunal dated 8th January, 2025 passed in assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 2 2. Before adverting to the Miscellaneous Applications, I would deem it appropriate to take note of the brief background of the litigation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income declaring total income at NIL for AY 2009-10 and Rs.1,38,970/- for A.Y. 2011-12. The returns were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) was issued on 23rd August, 2010 (for AY 2009-10) and 25th September, 2012 (for AY 2011-12) and served on the assessee. Subsequently notice under section 142(1) was issued on 12th August, 2011 (for AY 2009-10) and 8th August, 2013 (for AY 2011-12) and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee’s representative filed the supporting documentary evidences and explained the return. On perusal of the return, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB in a defective manner in both the appeals. Accordingly, it was communicated to the assessee by letter dated 17th November, 2011 (for AY 2009-10) and 4th February, 2014 (for AY 2011-12) that there happens to be certain deficits in the eligibility of her claim for the said deduction and the reasons were invited to show-cause why the claim of deduction under section 80IB would not be disallowed in the impugned assessment years. There was no compliance from the assessee and the assessments were completed under section 144 and also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated for failure to comply with Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 3 the terms of notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act and also denied the claim of the assessee under section 80IB. Ld. Assessing Officer determined the assessed income of the assessee for AY 2009-10 at Rs.19,74,590/-and for AY 2011-12 at Rs.17,73,560/-. Dissatisfied with these additions, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed both the appeals. The discussions/observations made by the ld. CIT(Appeals) read as under:- (For AY 2009-2010) “The present appeal is against the order u/s. 144/143(3) passed by the A.O. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and the order of the A.O. as already available on records. The appellant failed to offer any explanation or submission in support of the grounds raised in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced to substantiate the appeal against the order of the A.O. despite adequate opportunity having been provided. As in the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious without any basis. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the A.O. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the AO unless it is shown that the judgment of the AO was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed”. (For AY 2011-2012) “The present appeal is against the order u/s. 143(3) passed by the A.O. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and the order of the A.O. as already available on records. The appellant failed to offer any explanation or Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 4 submission in support of the grounds raised in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced to substantiate the appeal against the order of the A.O. despite adequate opportunity having been provided. As in the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious without any basis. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the A.O. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the AO unless it is shown that the judgment of the AO was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed”. 4. The assessee has filed two appeals before the Tribunal. He has challenged the additions for AY 2009-10 at Rs.19,74,590/- and for AY 2011-12 at Rs.17,73,560/-. Both the appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1272/KOL/2024 and 1273/KOL/2024 of the assessee approximately were time barred by 2655 days and 2473 days respectively. In the affidavit/petitions for condonation of delay, the assessee has mentioned that she handed over the appeal papers to one Advocate and one Chartered Accountant to file an appeal but appeals were not filed before the ITAT. Therefore, huge delay was occurred due to non-action of her ld. previous Counsels. On perusal of the affidavit filed by Shri Ashok Chatterjee, the appeal papers were handed over to him in the month of May, 2018, but till May, 2024, the assessee has not pursued the matter. On 08.05.2018, she was called for a meeting by Shri Ashok Chatterjee, Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 5 then Shri Ashok Chatterjee handed over the appeal papers to one Shri Mahadev Ghosh in May 2024, which clearly indicates that after handing over the appeal papers to Shri Ashok Chatterjee, she has not pursued matter for filing of the appeals before ITAT. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has appeared before the ld. Assessing Officer and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) wrongly mentioned on the Cause Title that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act and the Tribunal also opined that the assessee has not cooperative with the proceedings before the ld. Assessing Officer and mentioned the said fact in the order, which is not factually correct. 6. On this aspect, I have verified the assessment order. No doubt, that the assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the above said finding is only by mistake, but at the same time, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the sufficient cause to condone the huge delay of 2655 days and 2473 days in the appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1272/KOL/2024 and 1273/KOL/2024 respectively. The Tribunal has considered the affidavit filed by the assessee and there is no supporting evidence placed before me to establish the sufficient cause, which prevented the assessee to Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 6 approach the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to prefer appeals against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal has passed the speaking order, therefore, there is no infirmity/mistake apparent from the record, but the assessee is only asking to review the order passed by the Tribunal, which is not permitted in the Miscellaneous Applications under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed. 7. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/10/2025. Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 31st day of October, 2025 Copies to :(1) Sumita Roy Chowdhury, C/o. Mahadev Ghosh, Advocate, BF-199, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-48(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 71 & 72/KOL/2025 [in ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/KOL/2024 (A.Ys. 2009-2010 & 2011-2012)] Sumita Roy Chowdhury 7 (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 "