Calcutta High Court
Jayanta Ghosh vs Income Tax Officer on 28 April, 2026
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT 48 OF 2026
IA NO: GA 1 OF 2026
JAYANTA GHOSH
VS
INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANIKTALA AND OTHERS
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
For the Appellant : Ms. Sruti Datta, Ld. Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tarak Nath Jaiswal, Ld. Adv.
Mr. Madhu Jana, Ld. Adv.
Mr. Wahed Reja, Ld. Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 21.04.2026
Judgment on : 28.04.2026
Uday Kumar, J:-
ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL
1. The present appeal, preferred by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), “SMC” Bench, Kolkata, dated November 21,
2025, by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine on
2 ITAT 48 OF 2026
the grounds of limitation, refusing to condone a delay of 430 days,
without considering the merits of the assessment.
2. We have taken this matter appeared for the hearing on admission of this
appeal. The primary issue is the summary dismissal of the appeal by the
Tribunal, affirming an ex-parte order of a National Faceless Appeal
Centre (NFAC), on the grounds of limitation (a delay of 430 days) without
addressing the underlying jurisdictional challenge.
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly summarized. The
appellant is an individual assessee. The reassessment proceeding
against him was initiated under Section 147 of the Act for the
Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-
parte order making an addition of Rs. 13,76,200/- by invoking Section
50C (or Section 56(2)), alleging that the purchase price of an immovable
property at Rajarhat was lower than its stamp duty value. This
assessment deprived him of a fair opportunity to contest the valuation
on facts. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). However, the appeal was
dismissed in limine due to a delay of 430 days. This dismissal was
subsequently affirmed by the learned Tribunal through the impugned
order, primarily on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce
documentary evidence, specifically a death certificate, to substantiate
his claim of “sufficient cause.”In our view, such dismissal in itself is a
substantial question of law.
3 ITAT 48 OF 2026
4. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted on the following Substantial
Questions of Law that require our adjudication:
a. Whether the act of the Tribunal in dismissing an appeal solely
on the grounds of delay, without considering the merits of a
jurisdictional challenge, constitutes a “perverse” exercise of
discretion?
b. Whether the death of an authorized representative and the
transition of files in a faceless regime constitute “sufficient
cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
c. Whether the underlying assessment is a jurisdictional nullity
for failing to obtain mandatory approval from the Principal
Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) under Section 151, given the
escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs and the notice were
issued beyond three years?
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
5. Ms. Sruti Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued
that the appellant was a victim of circumstances beyond his control. It
was submitted that his erstwhile authorized representative, Shri Ratan
Kumar Ghosh, who was handling the tax matters and possessed all
relevant files, suffered from a terminal illness and passed away on July
23, 2024. He contended that in the current Faceless Assessment regime,
a taxpayer is entirely dependent on the digital portal managed by their
professional. The death of the professional created a communication
vacuum, leading to the delay. Furthermore, on the merits, she raised a
4 ITAT 48 OF 2026
fundamental jurisdictional objection, contending that the notice under
Section 148 was issued with the approval of the Principal Commissioner
(PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT), as required
under the amended Section 151 for cases exceeding three years where
the escaped income is below Rs. 50 Lakhs.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT (REVENUE)
6. Per contra, Mr. Tarak Nath Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the Revenue,
submitted that the Tribunal’s order is well-founded. He argued that the
law of limitation is a statute of repose and cannot be bypassed without
cogent evidence. He points out that the appellant failed to produce any
death certificate or evidence of representation before the lower
authorities. He further submits that since the appeal was never
admitted on merits due to the time-bar, the question of examining the
validity of the approval under Section 151 does not arise at this stage.
DISCUSSION ON LAW AND MERITS
7. We have considered the rival submissions. The primary issue is whether
a procedural threshold can be used to validate an order that is
potentially void ab initio. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land
Acquisition vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has unequivocally held
that the judiciary should adopt a “liberal approach” toward condonation
of delay to ensure substantial justice. It was observed that technicalities
should not be allowed to result in a miscarriage of justice, as a litigant
does not stand to benefit from a delayed filing.
5 ITAT 48 OF 2026
8. Furthermore, in the recent decision of Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2025 Live Law (SC) 339], the Apex Court reiterated that a
flexible view is mandatory when a limitation ground undermines the
merits of the case. In a digital environment, the death of an authorised
representative is a “force majeure” event for an assessee who lacks
digital literacy. In the present case, the “sufficient cause” was the death
of the counsel, a fact that goes to the heart of the right to legal
representation.
9. More importantly, the jurisdictional defect raised by the appellant
regarding Section 151 strikes at the very root of the matter. If the
approval for reassessment was granted by an authority not “specified”
under the statute, as held by this Court in Subhra Basu vs. Union of
India, WPA 18828 of 2022 (Cal HC), the entire proceeding is a nullity. A
jurisdictional error of such magnitude cannot be shielded by the law of
limitation.
CONCLUSION AND FINAL DIRECTIONS
10. Therefore, we find that the learned Tribunal adopted an overly rigid and
hyper-technical approach. By refusing to condone the delay caused by a
professional’s death and failing to address a patent jurisdictional nullity,
the Tribunal has failed to exercise its discretion in a just and proper
manner. To shut the doors of justice at the threshold is improper when
the very legality of the tax demand is in question.
6 ITAT 48 OF 2026
11. Consequently, we pass the following order:
I. The delay of 430 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
II. The impugned order of the ITAT dated November 21, 2025, is
set aside.
III. The matter is remanded to the ITAT, Kolkata Bench, for a fresh
adjudication on its merits.
IV. The Tribunal is specifically directed to decide the Jurisdictional
Validity of the assessment under Section 151 as a preliminary
issue.
V. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal
expeditiously, preferably within six months, after providing a
fair opportunity of hearing to both parties.
12. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
13. IA No. GA 1 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly.
14. Ordered accordingly.
I AGREE
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.)
