The Calcutta High Court emphasizes that appellate authorities must adopt a lenient approach when considering applications for condonation of delay in filing tax appeals, provided a sufficient explanation is furnished. This judgment upholds the established legal principle, reaffirming the duty to weigh condonation applications liberally, particularly when delay results from a reasonable cause beyond the control of the assessee. The ruling holds binding authority for subordinate courts and tribunals in the state and persuasive value elsewhere in tax adjudication.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ITAT/180/2025 of AKHILESH SINGH Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13/4 KOLKATA |
| CNR | WBCHCO0035222025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, HON’BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench – Debangsu Basak, J., Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding for subordinate courts/tribunals in West Bengal and persuasive elsewhere in India |
| Type of Law | Income Tax – Procedure for condonation of delay under appellate provisions |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appellate authority must adopt a liberal approach in considering condonation of delay applications in income tax appeals if the explanation for delay is reasonable and sufficient. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Calcutta High Court held that an appellate authority must consider condonation of delay applications in income tax appeals in a lenient manner, provided the assessee offers a sufficient and bona fide explanation for the delay. Merely formalistic or pedantic rejection, particularly when explanation indicates lack of information due to reasons genuinely beyond the assessee’s control (such as fault of an accountant), is improper. If a reasonable explanation is advanced—both initially and via supplementary affidavit—the benefit of condonation should ordinarily be extended, unless mala fide is apparent. The authority’s failure to adopt such approach was set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The judgment refers generally to “trite law” regarding leniency in condonation but does not cite specific case law. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court reiterates the principle that procedural provisions regarding condonation of delay in tax matters should receive a liberal construction to serve substantial justice, emphasizing the balance between diligence by litigants and genuine obstacles faced. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant, an individual assessee, was dependent on his accountant for tax matters. The accountant failed to inform him of notices during assessment and subsequently left his job. As a result, the assessee was unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond in time. Applications for condoning delay—first in Form 35 and later a supplementary affidavit—explained these circumstances but were rejected as insufficient by the appellate authority and upheld by the ITAT. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Income Tax authorities in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and authorities outside West Bengal |
| Overrules | Not specified; sets aside decisions of appellate authority and ITAT in the present case |
| Distinguishes | Not specified |
| Follows | Refers to “trite law” on liberal approach to condonation of delay, but without specific citation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates that condonation of delay in tax appeals must be considered with a liberal and lenient approach where reasonable explanation exists.
- The principle applies even if the explanation for delay is based primarily on an agent’s (such as accountant’s) fault, provided the circumstances are bona fide and not mala fide.
- Affidavits and additional explanations filed at the appellate stage must be given due consideration in assessing the sufficiency of cause for delay.
- Rejection of delay condonation solely on a technical or formal basis, especially in the face of consistent explanations, is liable to be set aside.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court notes that the assessee relied on an accountant who failed to communicate assessment proceedings and left employment, leading to the delay.
- Both the initial explanation in Form 35 and a subsequent detailed affidavit explained the circumstances causing the delay.
- The appellate authority and ITAT treated the explanation as insufficient without adequately applying the established principle that condonation of delay applications require a lenient, rather than rigid, approach.
- The Court recognizes as trite law that procedural provisions relating to condonation of delay are to be liberally construed to further substantive justice.
- The rejection of applications in the instant case was thus set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Assessee):
- Assessee was dependent on the accountant, who did not communicate assessment notices.
- Delay was explained in Form 35 and in a detailed affidavit filed before the ITAT after the initial explanation.
- Credible and bona fide reasons existed, warranting condonation of the delay to enable contest on merits.
Respondent (Revenue):
- Explanation for delay was submitted only at the appellate tribunal stage.
- The explanation was insufficient and did not warrant interference or condonation by the Court.
- No substantial question of law existed for the High Court’s intervention on these facts.
Factual Background
The assessee, an individual, was dependent on his accountant for tax and income matters. During the assessment year 2017-18, critical notices from the Income Tax Department were received by the accountant, who neither informed the assessee about them nor responded to the authorities. Subsequently, the accountant left his employment. As a result, the assessee missed responding to the assessment, and when filing the appeal, it was beyond the prescribed limitation. Ultimately, an explanation for the delay was provided in Form 35 and supplemented by affidavit but was rejected by the tax authorities and ITAT. The High Court was approached under Section 260A to challenge this rejection.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted the condonation of delay provisions relevant to the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding the appellate process.
- It was emphasized that appellate authorities are to assess condonation applications with leniency if a sufficient explanation is provided by the assessee.
- No reference to constitutional provisions or “reading down/reading in” approaches was made.
- The Court stressed the established liberal interpretation of procedural timelines in tax law, where justice would be subverted by technical rejection.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions noted; both judges concurred in the reasoning and ultimate conclusion.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents, changes in evidence requirements, or suo motu guidelines observed in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirmed established legal principles regarding lenient condonation of delay, not breaking new ground but reinforcing the existing approach.