SHA KALIDAS PRAGJI CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6575/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 December 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without confronting the assessee about the delay in filing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including the chance to file an application for condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order of the CIT(A) dated 18/08/2025, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an Intimation Order issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred without granting the assessee an opportunity to explain the alleged delay. The assessee contended that the appeal was filed within 30 days of receiving the Intimation Order and that principles of natural justice were violated.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing an appeal on grounds of limitation without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and whether the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of the order or its service/receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

order : 11.12.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 18/08/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 16/12/2019, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. That the order passed by the learned Addl/JCIT (Appeals)-7, Delhi dated 18-08-2025 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is erroneous, bad in law and on facts, as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. The learned Addl/JCIT (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not admitting appeal, as the Assessment Year 2018-2019 appellant failed to provide reason for late filing of appeal by 28 days.

3. The learned Addl/JCIT (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts and circumstances in coming to conclusion that the appellant needs to file appeal within 30 days of the date of passing of order and not within 30 days of date of serving of order.

4. The Learned Addl/JCIT (Appeals), has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not admitting the appeal, without issuing any show cause notice or giving opportunity to appellant to call for reasons in late filing of appeal, thus violating principles of natural justice.

5. The learned Addl/JCIT (Appeals), has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in relying upon Supreme Court decision in the case of Ajay Dabra vs. Pyare Ram dated 31- 01-2023, which is distinguishable with the Appellant’s facts of the case.

6. The learned Addl/JCIT(Appeals), has dismissed the appeal by upholding the addition of Rs.8,85,428/- made by Dy. CIT – CPC, Bangalore.”

3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee as being barred by limitation without granting any opportunity to the Assessee to explain the delay, if any. It was submitted that the appeal was filed within period of 30 days of receipts of Intimation Order, dated 16/12/2019, issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A).

4.

Countering the above submissions, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Intimation Order issued under Section 143(1) of the Act is sent over email and also upload on Income Tax Business Application (ITBA), therefore, it cannot be said that the same was received subsequently. Thus, there was a delay in filing the appeal.

5.

We have considered the above submissions and have perused the material on record. We find that the appeal before the Learned CIT(A)

2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 was instituted 11/02/2020. According to the Assessee there was no delay in filing the appeals before the Learned CIT(A) and therefore, in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form No.35 filed before the Learned CIT(A), it was stated that there was no delay in filing the appeal.

6.

On perusal of impugned order, we find that the appeal was instituted on 11/02/2022. The date of hearing of the appeal has been mentioned in the impugned order as 20/12/2023 only. Thus, the aforesaid supports the contention of the Assessee that the appeal was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) without confronting the Assessee about the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, dated 18/08/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file before the Learned CIT(A) written submissions or application seeking condonation of delay, as the case may be, providing explanation for institution of appeal after the expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of Intimation Order under Section 143(1) of the Act. Since, we have restored the appeal back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) all the rights and contentions to the parties are left open. In terms of the aforesaid, the Grounds No. 1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed, while Ground No. 5 and 6 are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous.

7.

In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →