VASUNDHARA FLORICULTURE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 3(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1236/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 August 2026AY 2015-20166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing Supreme Court judgments that advocate for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2015-16 was selected for scrutiny, and the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order adding Rs. 3,93,139/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of over 3 months and 22 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and if the appeal should be considered on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.1236/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Floriculture.......................................................................................Appellant 12, Ambassador Apartment, 61A, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016 [PAN No. AACCV2850N] Vs. D.C.I.T., C.C.-3(3)..................................…………..…………………....……….Respondent Kolkata- Appearances by: Manish Tiwari, FCA, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R),appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : July 15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : August 14 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.02.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), passed under Section 154 of the Assessment Year 2015- 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the appellant is a company engaged in the business of developing of land infrastructure and electronically furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 and

ITA No.1236/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 disclosed total income at Nil. The return was manually selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the appellant company. Subsequently, in due course of time the A.O. passed assessment order under section 144 as ex-parte and assessed the total income at Rs. 3,93,139/-. At the time of passing of assessment order, the AO made addition of Rs. 3,93, 139/- under the head development expenses.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there was a delay of 3 months and 22 days in filing of the appeal.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred appeal before us.

3.

The Ld. AR instead of arguing the merit into the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after condoning the delay as the CIT(A) did not consider the grounds/reason of delay dismissed the appeal in limine.

Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.

ITA No.1236/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 4. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine. The CIT(A) has hold that there has been no sufficient cause show in the petition for a delay 3 months and 22 days. The submission of the AR is that main person of the business concern is the director who is about 76 years was suffering from severe low back pain and doctor advised him for complete bed rest, because of this delay has been occurred. In this context, we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]:

"... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant."

In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: 5."It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof 3

ITA No.1236/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16 is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court.

2.

The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly.

3.

A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”

5.

Keeping in view the submission made by the assessee considering the Apex Court judgment, delay before the CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.1236/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16

Kolkata, the 14th August , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 14.08.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.1236/Kol/2026 Assessment Year- 2015-16

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →