PRISM IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1400/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 July 2026AY 2009-20106 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation. It then restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 472 days due to the severe medical conditions of key personnel managing the company. The lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without deciding all grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to unavoidable medical circumstances, and whether the ex-parte orders passed by lower authorities violated principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 253(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH,

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 24.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1400/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Prism Impex Private Limited Vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle-1(2), Room No.8, 1st Floor, 23A, Netaji Kolkata Subhas Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700 001 [PAN: AABCP8240K] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Respondent by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR Date of hearing : 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 O R D E R PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 08.10.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

There is a delay of 472 days in filing the Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with affidavit for condonation of delay narrating the reasons which are reproduced as under: - “1. That the present appeal is being filed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre under section 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 dated 08.10.2024

ITA No.1400/Kol/2026 Prism Impex Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10

2.

That under section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is required to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. In the present case, the time limitfor filing the appeal expired on 31.12.2024. Accordingly, there is a approximately 472 days in filing the present appeal before this Hot ble Tribunal 3. That the delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant company. The appellant company consists of three Directors namely, Sri Siddhartha Tantia, Sri Harshvardhan Tantia Smt. Anita Tantia. Here Sri Ishwari Prasad Tantia aged 76 years is the father of first mentioned two directors and father in law of third director who was responsible for managing and running the day-to-day administrative affairs of the appellant company. 4. That Sri Ishwari Prasad Tantia was suffering from chronic respiratory tract infection disease for several years, and his medical condition deteriorated significantly after the COVID-19 pandemic. During early part of the year 2023 he was admitted to hospital for several days (medical reports enclosed) due to this reason the day to day income tax matters did not get proper attention and this is the main reason for delay in submission of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. He has since been under medical supervision and is presently in the stage of recovery. 5. That Sri Rahul Tantia aged 53 years who is the elder brother of first mentioned two director and husband of third director is also suffering from Wated Leg Syndrome (Left leg)-possible AHC disease for a long time (medical reports enclosed) and for this reason all the three directors are busy for treatment of Sri Rahul Tantia and mentally disturbed and unable to give attention to day to day business and official matters of the company. This is also the reason for delay submission of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 6. That consequently, the order passed under section 250 dated 08.10.2024 remained unnoticed, and the necessary steps for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal could not be taken within the prescribed period. 7. That it was only after his health condition stabilized and the records were subsequently reviewed, that the said order came to his notice and immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal.

ITA No.1400/Kol/2026 Prism Impex Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10 8. That the delay in filing the appeal is purely unintentional, bong fide and by unavoidable medical circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 9. That the copies of relevant medical records, doctor consultations, are annexed herewith in support of the above-mentioned facts for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 10. That the appellant has a strong case on merits, and if the delay is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injustice.”

3.

The Ld. AR by reiterating the averments of the Affidavit sought for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.

4.

The Ld. DR submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present appeal on delay in latches.

5.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 472 days in filing the Appeal.

ITA No.1400/Kol/2026 Prism Impex Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 147/144of the Act on 23.12.2016 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 23.12.2016, Assessee filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 08.10.2024, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 08.10.2024, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of the appeals of the assessee and the orders impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the appeals.

8.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a habitual defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the appeals.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the assessee has not

ITA No.1400/Kol/2026 Prism Impex Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10 participated in any of the proceedings and no compliance was made before the Lower Authorities. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment subject to Assessee pay cost of Rs.2000/- payable to Income Tax Department. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.

10.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 24.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24.07.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.1400/Kol/2026 Prism Impex Private Limited; A.Y: 2009-10 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR) //TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →