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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

We have considered the above submissions and have perused the material on record. We find that the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) Assessment Year 2018-2019

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.

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

अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध ,आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.