M/S PATANJALI PARIVAHAN PVT. LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 333/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 July 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s approach hyper-technical and condoned the 43-day delay. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 43-day delay, which was not condoned. The assessee argued the delay occurred during the Covid-19 period and sought a remand.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to a short delay without condoning it, and whether the matter should be remanded for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DB: DEHRADUN BENCH

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DB: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 333/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] M/s Patanjali Parivahan Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Kankhal Circle 1(1)(1), Dehradun, Aaykar Haridwar, Uttarkhand-249408. Vs Bhawan, 13A, Subhash Road, Dehradun 248001. PAN- AAFCP1505P Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Mohan Lal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.07.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal arises from order dated 30.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the AO passed an order dated 07.06.2021 by making an addition of Rs. 4,53,26,857/- by holding that certain provisions in the balance sheet were not allowable.

ITA No.- 333/DDN/2026 M/s Patanjali Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved, the assessee has approached the Ld. CIT(A), where delay of 43 days was not condoned and it was held that good and sufficient reasons u/s 249(3) of the Act were not provided and therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

1.2 The assessee has approached ITAT with the grounds challenging this action of the Ld. CIT(A) and also challenging the addition on merits.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessment order was received during Covid-19 period and there was a small delay of 43 days, which was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that as per the understanding of the assessee, there was no delay since the assessment order itself was received a little late. It was a prayed that the assessee should be allowed to present the facts and be given another opportunity for the same. It was prayed that the matter could be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

2.1 Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted a hyper-technical approach in not being sympathetic towards a relatively small delay of 43 days.

3.1 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), and thereby set aside the impugned order. We remand this matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. 2

ITA No.- 333/DDN/2026 M/s Patanjali Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. Needless to say, the ld. CIT(A) would give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 21 .08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →