What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the first appeal, considering the reasons provided as potentially sufficient. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 19 days, citing the Chartered Accountant's busy schedule and festivals as reasons. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned.

Srividhya Murthy vs I.T.O., Ward - 22(2) | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,

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

For Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR

Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1427/KOL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Srividhya Murthy Vs. ITO Ward-22(2), Kolkata P-225 Purna Das Road, Kolkata West Bengal-700029 [PAN: AFTPM3951N] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Amit Kumar Barua, DR Date of hearing : 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 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 16.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

Brief facts of the case are that, an Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 27.09.2022 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 27.09.2022, Assessee filed an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide Order dated 16.03.2026, dismissed the Appeal of the

ITA No.1427/Kol/2026 Srividhya Murthy; A.Y: 2020-21 Assessee.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.03.2026, Assessee filed the present Appeal.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 19 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in laches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 27.09.2024, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 19 days. Assessee contended that the Chartered Accountant was busy in filing ITR and there was festivals going on, therefore, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.

ITA No.1427/Kol/2026 Srividhya Murthy; A.Y: 2020-21 6. It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. 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 19 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

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

Order pronounced on 23.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAKESH MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23.07.2026 DP, PS

ITA No.1427/Kol/2026 Srividhya Murthy; A.Y: 2020-21 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

SRIVIDHYA MURTHY,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments