Income Tax Consultant died during COVID-19: ITAT condones 848 days' delay [Read Order]
The ITAT condoned a delay of 848 days in filing an appeal, noting that the taxpayer’s consultant had died during the COVID-19 pandemic.
![Income Tax Consultant died during COVID-19: ITAT condones 848 days delay [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/01/14/2119736-income-tax-consultant-died-during-covid-19-taxscan.webp "Income Tax Consultant died during COVID-19: ITAT condones 848 days delay [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) showed a compassionate approach in condoning a delay of 848 days in filing an appeal, where the appellant’s Income Tax Consultant had tragically passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subodh Adhikary, the petitioner, challenged the assessment order for AY 2015-16, in which the AO had made...
In a recent ruling, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) showed a compassionate approach in condoning a delay of 848 days in filing an appeal, where the appellant’s Income Tax Consultant had tragically passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subodh Adhikary, the petitioner, challenged the assessment order for AY 2015-16, in which the AO had made several additions beyond the issue of cash deposits that was originally flagged under CASS. The AO had expanded the enquiry into capital gains, unexplained investments, and property transactions even before formally converting the case into complete scrutiny.
Also Read:ITAT Grants Relief on Unexplained Income in ₹94-Lakh Property Sale Despite Invalid Income Tax Return [Read Order]
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the AO’s action violated CBDT Instruction No. 5/2016, which clearly restricts enquiries in limited scrutiny cases unless credible material is available and proper approval is obtained. He relied on earlier decisions, including Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) and Vijay Kumar (Chandigarh ITAT), which had taken a similar view.
The department’s counsel contended that the AO had issued notice under Section 142(1) and later converted the case to complete scrutiny on December 1, 2017, thereby justifying the additions.
The Division Bench of Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) observed that the AO had started enquiries into other issues before the conversion order was passed. The Tribunal held that such action was contrary to CBDT’s binding instructions and amounted to a fishing and roving enquiry. It further noted that the approval for conversion was mechanical and lacked cogent material.
The tribunal held that the addition of ₹28 lakh under Section 68 of the Income TaxAct. The Tribunal found that the assessee had duly explained the source of cash deposits with bank statements and replies, but the authorities had failed to appreciate the evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order, deleting all additions, including short‑term capital gains of ₹2.26 crore, unexplained investment of ₹2.84 crore, and the cash credit of ₹28 lakh. The appeal was allowed in full.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
