IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

ACIT, Central Circle 4(3)

Jaideep Halwasiya Office of the Assistant

3^rd Floor, P34, India Exchange Commissioner of Income Tax, CC Place, Kolkata-700001 Vs. 4(3), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, EM Bypasss, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AAWPH1706L Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &

Ms. Lata Goyal, ARs Revenue by : Shri Mohit Mrinal, DR Date of hearing: 07.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 20.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Kolkata-27, (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] dated 31.08.2024 for the AY 2019-

20.

2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 326 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and assessed to tax in India under PAN AAWPH1706L. The assessee stays outside India and his income tax matters are looked after by an accountant hired in India. The assessee was not able access Income Tax Portal Outside India and therefore, was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) on 31.08.2024. The accountant who was looking after the income tax matters and having access to Income Tax Portal did not verify/ check the Portal at the appropriate time and thus, he was having no information about the said appellate order having been uploaded on the ITBA Portal on 31.08.2024 and thus, missed to communicate the same to assessee at the appropriate time. It was sometime in the month of August, 2025 when the assessee enquired from the said accountant about preparation of his ITR for the current A.Y 2025-26 from office of the tax advocate at Kolkata, it was then informed about the said order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) having been uploaded on the Portal on 31.08.2024 and a copy was forwarded to him for his information. Immediately after having come to know about the said order, the appeal was filed before tribunal with delay of 326 days. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said delay in filing this appeal is unintentional and for bona fide and reasonable cause. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessee was not negligent in filing this appeal but for some unavoidable reasons and circumstances as stated above, it could not be possible for him to take steps for filing the appeal within the prescribed due date. On the above facts, as there was no deliberate delay or mala fides on the part of the assessee, the delay may be condoned. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1167 1.T.R. 471 (SC) and the Coordinate bench of Delhi in the case of Royal Airways Ltd. vs. ADIT reported in [2006] 98 ITD 259 (ITAT Del]).

2.1. The Ld. D.R on the other hand strongly opposed the maintainability of the appeal as the delay was not explained with reasons.

2.2. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reason, hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal after respectfully following the decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 1167 1.T.R. 471 (SC), has held that the Courts should have a pragmatic and liberal approach while considering the petition for condonation of delay. Their Lordships have also held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be preferred. Similarly, the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Royal Airways Ltd. vs. ADIT reported in [2006] 98 ITD 259 (ITAT Del]) has condoned the delay of 9 to 11 years in filing appeals