I . T. . N o. 2 2 2 5 / KO L . / 2 0 1 4 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 1 of 3 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T .A. No. 2225/KOL/ 2014 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Gautam Sen gupta,.... ........................................................Appellant Shyam Towers, 347/1, Shyam Nagar Ro ad, Dum Dum Park, Kolk ata-700 055 [PAN: AKLPS 3191 B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.... ........................Respondent Circle-XVI, Ko lkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 014 Appearances by: Shri I. Banerjee, FCA, for assessee Shri Dinbandhu Naskar, JCIT, D.R., for Department Date of concluding th e hearing : Au gust 03, 2016 Date of pronouncing order : October 04, 2016 O R D E R This appeal filed by assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata dated 25.09.2014, whereby he dismissed appeal filed by assessee in limine by treating same as barred by limitation. 2. assessee in present case is individual, who filed his return of income for year under consideration on 01.07.2008 declaring total income of Rs.20,32,100/-. Although said return was initially accepted by Assessing Officer, assessment was reopened by him subsequently by issuing notice under section 148 on 23.09.2011. said notice as well as subsequent notices issued by Assessing Officer under section 142(1), however, remained un-complied with by assessee and Assessing Officer, therefore, was left with no option but to complete assessment ex parte to best of his judgment under section 144/147 of Act. In assessment so completed vide order I . T. . N o. 2 2 2 5 / KO L . / 2 0 1 4 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 3 dated 20.07.2012, he made two additions of Rs.2,48,625/- and Rs.28,225/- to total income of assessee and assessed income of assessee for year under consideration at Rs.23,08,950/-. 3. Against order passed by Assessing Officer under section 144/147, appeal was preferred by assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals). There was, however, delay of 128 days on part of assessee in filing said appeal. In this regard, application was filed by assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals) seeking condonation of said delay on ground that his Authorized Representative Shri Shamim Rahaman was not well during relevant period. affidavit of Shri Shamim Rahaman was also filed by assessee in support along with certificate from Doctor. On perusal of said medical certificate filed by assessee, ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that Authorized Representative of assessee was mainly advised rest by Doctor. According to him, filing appeal was not so heavy that person advised some rest by Doctor could not do same. For this reason as well as some other reasons given by him, ld. CIT(Appeals) refued to condone delay of 128 days on part of assessee in filing his appeal and dismissed same in limine. Aggrieved by order of ld. CIT(Appeals), assessee has preferred this appeal before Tribunal. 4. I have heard arguments of both sides and also perused relevant material available on record. It is observed that delay of 128 days in filing appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) was sought to be condoned by assessee on ground that his Authorize d Representative was not well during relevant period. This reason given by assessee was duly supported by affidavit of said Authorized Representative as well as medical certificate. ld.CIT(Appeals), however, did not find reason given by assessee to be sufficient cause on grounds given in his impugned order, which, in my opinion, are neither cogent nor convincing. It is well settled position of law that while considering issue of condonation of delay, appellate I . T. . N o. 2 2 2 5 / KO L . / 2 0 1 4 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 3 authorities should construe sufficient cause liberally taking into account interest of substantial justice as well as fact that n o assessee is going to derive any benefit by filing his appeal belatedly. If I apply this legal position as well as spirit propounded in various judicial pronouncements by Hon ble Supreme Court to facts of assessee s case, I find that there was sufficient cause for delay on part of assessee in filing his appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals). I, therefore, condone said delay and remit case to ld. CIT(Appeals) with direction to him to dispose of appeal of assessee afresh on merit after giving assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 5. In result, appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on October 04, 2016. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, 4 t h day of October, 2016 Copies to : (1) Shri Gau tam Sengup ta, Shyam Towers, 347/1, Shyam Nagar Ro ad, Dum Dum Park, Kolk ata-700 055 (2 ) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-XVI, Ko lkata, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 014 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata; (4) Commissio ner of Income Tax- , (5) Depart ment al Represent ative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Gautam Sengupta v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-xvi, Kolkata