M G N BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS,SAMBHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SAMBHAL

ITA NO. 3658/DEL/2026 MGN BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS VS. ITO

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 3658/Del/2026 Asstt. Year : 2018-19

MGN BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS, VS. ITO, MOHALLA SAHBAZPUR, NEAR NEAR CHAMUNDA RAISATTI, JOYA ROAD, SAMBHAL MANDIR, ALAM SARAI, UTTAR PRADESH-244302 SAMBAHL, U.P.-244302 [PAN: AAZFM3283E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : None (Written adjournment application rejected) Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 16.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2026

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM : 1. This appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 3.2.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s both the appeals in liminie on account of being time barred. 2. Perused the records and heard the Ld. DR. It transpires from the records that the assessee filed first appeal on 13.11.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 9.3.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of 950 days in filing the appeal before him, which was occurred due to internal disputes between the partners, resulting in 1

ITA NO. 3658/DEL/2026 MGN BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS

lack of access to key managerial and tax related documents and breakdown of communication within the firm. The assessee made the prayer for condonation of delay in dispute accordingly. It is noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal before the CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Ld. CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay in dispute and dismissed the quantum appeal. 3. The Ld. DR submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, thus, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. The Ld. CIT(A) should

have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have decided the appeal on

merit because the assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file within time.

Thus, keeping the entire aspects of the matter we condoned the delay in preferring

the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) having been satisfied with the explanation so,

rendered by assessee by the said authority. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is

setting aside. Therefore, we restore back the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for

passing order afresh, on merits in accordance with law, after giving adequate

opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the written submissions, if any.

We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the

hearings and making submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) for the expeditious and

effective disposal of the appeal. Also, assessee should refrain from seeking any

adjournment except for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. We hold and

direct accordingly.

2 | P a g e

ITA NO. 3658/DEL/2026 MGN BUILDING MATERIAL SUPPLIERS

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(RAMIT KOCHAR) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date: 22.07.2026 SRBhatnaggar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench

3 | P a g e