Abdul Mannan v. ITO

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 260A

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Tribunal costs and access to merits: The reported High Court decision sets aside a substantial cost imposed by the Tribunal and restores consideration of the tax appeal. The exact reason for the cost and remand scope should be taken from the official judgment.

Material facts and background

OD-5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/170/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 ABDUL MANNAN VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(3), KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N DHON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 9th September, 2025 Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, Adv. Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Ashoke Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Suman Sahani, Adv. …for appellant The Court : This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 15.7.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `SMC’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A No. 738/Kol/2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :i)

In any event, when the assessee had filed the statutory appeal within the time of limitation, it is not a case where the assessee was not diligent of his rights but being an individual assessee, in all probabilities was not well versed with the procedures and was solely dependent upon the consultant, who appears to have not taken steps to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer or by the Appellate Authority. In any event, the learned Tribunal opined that the matter has to be redone and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. However, we find that imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- would be harsh on the appellant, more particularly, when he is a small time trader and an individual assessee. That apart, the issue pertains to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has undertaken before this Court that he will cooperate in the de novo assessment proceedings in terms of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal and one more opportunity may be granted. Considering the above, this appeal is allowed and the cost imposed by the learned Tribunal on the appellant/assessee is set aside and the matter stands remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh...

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 464 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4.

Appellant / assessee submissions

During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the

orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the ld. AR has made a request before the Bench that if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. AO by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta-700001, within sixty days from the date of this...

Revenue / respondent submissions

We have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, learned Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, learned Advocate, for the appellant/assessee. Though notice has been served on the respondent/department, no counsel has been nominated by the department. Therefore, we have directed Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, present in Court, to accept notice on behalf of the respondent/department and his appearance be regularized and the fee bills be honoured. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15 th July, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal by which the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment afresh. The appellant is not aggrieved by such portion of the order but is aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Tribunal in imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the assessee payable to the Legal Aid Services.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.738/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Abdul Mannan Vs ITO Ward-32(3), Kolkata B-6/H/3, Miajan Ostagar Lane, Beniapukur, Kolkata-700017 PAN No. : AEYPM 6978 F .. (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Anil Dugal, AR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by

आदे श / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 11.10.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2.

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr.DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay of 464 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4.

ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was the prayer that

the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim. 5.

orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, the ld. AR has made a request before the Bench that if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent its case before the ld. AO, the assessee could be able to provide all the details before the ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, I grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the ld. AO by restoring the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee, I impose a cost of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Legal Aid Services, 3rd Floor of the Centenary Building, High Court, Calcutta-700001, within sixty days from the date of this...

abovementioned costs within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed. The assessee shall cooperate in the readjudication proceeding before the AO positively. 7.

कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 15/07/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदे श की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant2.

Operative decision and relief

In any event, when the assessee had filed the statutory appeal within the time of limitation, it is not a case where the assessee was not diligent of his rights but being an individual assessee, in all probabilities was not well versed with the procedures and was solely dependent upon the consultant, who appears to have not taken steps to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer or by the Appellate Authority. In any event, the learned Tribunal opined that the matter has to be redone and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. However, we find that imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- would be harsh on the appellant, more particularly, when he is a small time trader and an individual assessee. That apart, the issue pertains to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has undertaken before this Court that he will cooperate in the de novo assessment proceedings in terms of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal and one more opportunity may be granted. Considering the above, this appeal is allowed and the cost imposed by the learned Tribunal on the appellant/assessee is set aside and the matter stands remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh...

the matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim. 5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Tribunal costs and access to merits. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Tribunal costs and access to merits. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance