REDI PORT LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4466/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 November 2025AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal found that such a dismissal, without adjudicating the appeal on merits and examining the materials on record, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and settled law, which mandates appellate authorities to dispose of appeals on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh appellate order after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, allowing them to advance arguments and submissions on the merits of the case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the CIT(A). The issue regarding the statutory exclusion of time under the second proviso to Section 249(2) was not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Redi Port Limited, filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The AO had determined the total income at Rs 6,39,83,530/- against the returned income of Rs 5,55,29,000/-. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal as time-barred, noting a delay of 30 days and the absence of mention of this delay in Form 35. The assessee had previously filed an application for immunity from penalty under section 270AA on 15.04.2025, which was rejected by the AO on 27.05.2025. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed on 04.06.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the statutory exclusion of time under the second proviso to Section 249(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the period during which the application under section 270AA was pending should be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal, as per the second proviso to section 249(2). The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting an opportunity of hearing before dismissing the appeal, in contravention of Section 250(1) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. The assessee argued that the dismissal without a hearing violated principles of natural justice. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 249(2),Section 250(1),Section 270AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara,AR
For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 17.09.2025Pronounced: 10.11.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.Μ.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 16.06.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act"] dated 25.03.2025 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2023-24. Page 2 Redi Port Limited

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the statutory exclusion of time under the second proviso to Section 249(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in not granting an opportunity of hearing before dismissing the appeal, in contravention of Section 250(1) of the Act and the principles of natural justice.

3.

Facts of the case are that the ld.Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act in this case, determining total income at Rs 6,39,83,530/-,as against the returned income of Rs 5,55,29,000/-by making various additions and disallowances. The ld.CIT(A) observed that the appeal filed before him by the assessee against the assessment order was delayed by 30 days. He further observed from the Form no.35 that the assessee did not mention such delay. Therefore, applying the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, he dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the appeal on merits.

4.

Before us, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee filed an application in Form 68 on 15.04.2025, seeking immunity from penalty under section 270AA of the Act. The AO passed an order on 27.05.2025, rejecting the said immunity application. Pursuant to such rejection, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 04.06.2025 against the Page 3 Redi Port Limited assessment order. However, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudication on merits, solely on the ground that the appeal was time- barred. It is contented that the second proviso to section 249(2) of the Act provides that the time during which an application under section 270AA of the Act remains pending, shall be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing an appeal.

5.

We find that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the alleged delay. Consequently, he failed to adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the materials available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits after considering the material on record, even if the appellant fails to appear.

6.

Considering the entirety of the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of principles of natural justice and fair play, we consider it appropriate to send the entire matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) in the light of above discussion, granting opportunity to the assessee to advance the arguments and submissions before him, in Page 4 Redi Port Limited connection with the merits of the case. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the ld.CIT(A) for passing the appellate order afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee who is also directed to attend the proceedings before him and cooperate in furnishing relevant details etc as sought.

7.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2025. SANDEEP GOSAIN (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 10.11.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →