Sumita Roy Chowdhury Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata dismissed an appeal filed by Sumita Roy Chowdhury, citing a substantial delay of 2655 days. The case originated from an assessment year 2009-10 dispute, where the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80IB was denied due to procedural defects and non-compliance with notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). Despite multiple opportunities provided by both the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], the assessee failed to present necessary documentation or attend hearings. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, but with a significant delay of 2655 days. In her condonation petition, the assessee attributed the delay to the negligence of two professionals: an advocate, Shri Tapas Kumar Majumder, who initially failed to file the appeal, and a Chartered Accountant (CA), Shri Ashok Chatterjee, who also did not file the appeal despite being entrusted with the case. The assessee argued that she had diligently handed over the appeal papers and should not be held responsible for their inaction.
However, the ITAT rejected the assessee’s explanation, emphasizing her own negligence. The tribunal noted that even after handing over the papers to Shri Ashok Chatterjee in May 2018, the assessee did not actively pursue the matter until May 2024, when Chatterjee eventually passed the case to another advocate, Shri Mahadev Ghosh. The ITAT pointed out that merely handing over documents does not absolve the assessee of the responsibility to ensure timely filing. Furthermore, the assessee’s consistent failure to respond to notices at both the AO and CIT(A) levels indicated a lack of diligence. The tribunal concluded that the delay was primarily due to the assessee’s own inaction and lack of follow-through, rather than solely the professionals’ failures. It held that the assessee’s conduct demonstrated gross negligence, and therefore, the condonation petition was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of an assessee’s active participation and oversight in tax proceedings, even when engaging professional representatives.
