The Calcutta High Court has condoned the delay of 430 days and held that the  jurisdictional defect can’t be overlooked in reassessment proceedings.

The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar has observed that the procedural delays cannot defeat substantive justice where a jurisdictional defect strikes at the root of tax proceedings and condoned a delay of 430 days and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must be decided on merits. 

The dispute arose from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 for Assessment Year 2017–18. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte order making an addition of ₹13.76 lakh on account of alleged undervaluation of immovable property under Section 50C/56(2). The assessee challenged the order before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), but the appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 430 days. The Tribunal subsequently upheld this dismissal, citing lack of documentary proof to justify the delay. 

The assessee contended that the delay was caused due to the death of his authorised representative, who was handling the case and had access to all relevant documents. It was argued that in the faceless assessment regime, taxpayers are heavily dependent on their professionals, and the sudden demise created a communication breakdown.

Further, a crucial jurisdictional objection was raised: the reassessment notice under Section 148 was allegedly issued with approval from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT), as mandated under Section 151 for cases beyond three years involving escaped income below ₹50 lakh. 

The department opposed the plea, arguing that limitation laws must be strictly applied and that the assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence, such as a death certificate, to justify the delay. It was further contended that since the appeal was dismissed on limitation, the merits—including the jurisdictional challenge—need not be examined. 

The High Court strongly disapproved the Tribunal’s approach, observing that a hyper-technical application of limitation law cannot override substantial justice. Relying on judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that a liberal approach must be adopted while considering condonation of delay, especially where denial of hearing may result in miscarriage of justice. 

The Court held that a jurisdictional defect—such as absence of proper sanction under Section 151—renders the entire proceeding void ab initio. Such a fundamental issue cannot be ignored merely on procedural grounds like delay. The Court also recognised the death of the authorised representative as a valid and substantial cause, particularly in the context of a faceless digital tax regime. 

The High Court condoned the delay of 430 days, set aside the ITAT’s order dated November 21, 2025 and remanded the matter to the ITAT for fresh adjudication on merits.

The court directed the Tribunal to first decide the jurisdictional validity under Section 151 and asked for expeditious disposal within six months after granting proper hearing

The Court concluded that shutting the doors of justice at the threshold is improper when the legality of the tax demand itself is under serious doubt. 

Case Details

Case Title: Jayanta Ghosh Vs Income Tax Officer, Maniktala And Others

Citation: JURISHOUR-989-HC-2026(CAL) 

Case No.: ITAT 48 OF 2026

Date:  28.04.2026 

Counsel For  Petitioner: Sruti Datta

Counsel For Respondent: Tarak Nath Jaiswal

Read More: Pre-2022 Iron Ore Exports Must Be Assessed on WMT Basis, Not DMT: Orissa HC Quashes Customs Demand