IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT 186 OF 2026 IA NO: GA 1 OF 2026 RAHUL SINGH VS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL & ORS. BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sutirtha Das For the Respondents : Ms. Sanjukta Gupta, Ms. Sukanya Dutta Reserved on : 28.07.2026 Pronounced on : 07.08.2026 Uday Kumar, J:- I. INTRODUCTION 1. The gateway to this appellate court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is neither wide nor indiscriminate; it is guarded by a strict statutory sentinel. An appeal before this High Court is maintainable only if it gives rise to a compelling, clear-cut, and undiluted Substantial Question of Law. Without such a foundational ITAT 186 OF 2026 2 question, the doors of this court remain firmly bolted. While internal administrative circulars concerning monetary ceilings, such as those issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 268A, restrict the Revenue from litigating minor tax effects, they do not bind an assessee. However, an assessee, irrespective of tax effect boundaries, must clear the mandatory test of law that the appeal must present a substantial question of law. If that core requirement is missing, the appeal must fail at the threshold. 2. The present litigation stems from Assessment Year 2018–19. The appellant, carrying on a proprietorship concern under the name and style of "Singh Construction" in Purulia, filed his return of income on August 18, 2018, declaring an income of Rs. 6,51,020/-. During the course of scrutiny, the Assessing Officer zoomed in on a property transaction dated November 23, 2017, through which the appellant purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Ignoring the actual transaction price and the explanations put forth, the Assessing Officer substituted this figure with the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 39,69,000/- determined by the Additional District Sub- Registrar, Purulia. Invoking the deeming mechanism under Section 56(2) of the Act, an astronomical addition of Rs. 29,69,000/- was slapped onto the assessee, culminating in the assessment order dated March 8, 2021. 4. The first appeal preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, met with an order of ITAT 186 OF 2026 3 dismissal on August 26, 2024. Thereafter, due to persistent physical health issues and chronic arm ailments, the appellant could not move the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('SMC' Bench, Kolkata) within time, resulting in a delay. Supported by medical certificates and an affidavit, the assessee sought condonation of delay. However, by the impugned order dated January 13, 2026 passed in I.T.A. No. 1766/KOL/2025, the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical and unsympathetic view, rejecting the medical cause merely because the illness did not stem from a sudden vehicular accident, and dismissed the appeal in limine on limitation grounds, noting: "The facts in the present case clearly show that the assessee had admittedly not met with an accident but he is having swelling in his left arm... The reasons given by the assessee clearly do not explain the delay... The delay in filing the appeal is not condoned and the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in limine." 5. Dissatisfied with the refusal to condone the delay, the appellant has knocked on the doors of this Court via the instant appeal. II. DISCUSSION ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW & ADMISSIBILITY UNDER SECTION 260A 6. We have meticulously examined the Memorandum of Appeal, heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length, and analysed the statutory architecture governing this Court's appellate jurisdiction. 7. Even if one were to concede that the Tribunal's approach to the condonation of delay was overly pedantic and rigid, the appellant faces an insurmountable legal barrier when crossing into this High Court ITAT 186 OF 2026 4 under Section 260A. An appeal cannot be entertained merely because an order of a tribunal appears harsh, nor can sympathy override statutory mandates. The law dictates that this Court does not sit as a regular court of first or second appeal on facts. It does not re-appreciate evidence, nor does it re-examine property valuations or medical fitness certificates as if it were a trial court 8. A careful perusal of the grounds formulated in the memorandum of appeal demonstrates that the entire challenge is centered around: i. Whether the Tribunal erred in disbelieving the medical certificates regarding the assessee's physical ailment; and ii. Whether the authorities below were justified in adopting the stamp duty valuation over the actual purchase price under Section 56(2) of the Act. 9. It is axiomatic in tax jurisprudence that questions concerning the sufficiency of cause for delay, the appreciation of medical evidence, and the factual valuation of an immovable property are quintessential questions of fact. They do not involve any statutory interpretation, do not expose any conflict of judicial opinion on a legal provision, and disclose no perversity of such magnitude as to transform a factual dispute into a question of law. 10. To cross the threshold of Section 260A, the question proposed must be debatable, novel, and have a direct bearing on the interpretation or application of a statutory provision. Because the questions raised here are entirely rooted in a re-appraisal of facts, they fail to qualify as Substantial Questions of Law. ITAT 186 OF 2026 5 III. CONCLUSION 11. To sum up, while the fiscal boundaries concerning tax effects apply as a restraint solely against the Revenue, the foundational prerequisite of demonstrating a substantial question of law applies universally to every appellant invoking Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The present memorandum of appeal cuts no ice on this mandatory legal requirement. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails to meet the statutory prerequisites for admission. 13. The appeal (I.T.A.T. No. 186 of 2026) along with the connected application (G.A. No. 1 of 2026) are, therefore, dismissed as non- maintainable, being devoid of any substantial question of law. 14. The impugned order of the Tribunal stands undisturbed on this jurisdictional premise. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent certified web copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. I AGREE (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.)