What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 227 days and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 227 days. The assessee contended that the delay was due to bona fide reasons and the dismissal violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay and violating principles of natural justice.

Quicktouch Technologies Ltd… vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR

Hearing: 19.06.2026Pronounced: 10.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2422/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2023-24) Quicktouch Technologies Ltd., ITO, C/o. Subash Agarwal & Vs. Ward – 14(1), Associates, Advocates, Siddha Kolkata Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite – 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069 [PAN:AATCS4105N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 19.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Pune (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. JCIT(A)”], dated 29.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24.

At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 227 days, which was on account of bona fide and genuine reasons. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is in violation

ITA No.2422/Kol/2025/AY 2023-24 Quicktouch Technologies Ltd. vs. ITO of the principles of natural justice and fair play and accordingly, the assessee may be given one more opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) by restoring the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of ld. AR.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the appellate order has been passed by dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 227 days. In our opinion, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in violation of section 250(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. In our opinion in the interests of justice and fair play, it would be fair it the assessee is given on more opportunity before ld. CIT(A) to to present its case. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 227 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the assessee.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 10/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧĤ Ǔ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 2

ITA No.2422/Kol/2025/AY 2023-24 Quicktouch Technologies Ltd. vs. ITO 4. आयकर] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, आयकर\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ��,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. �ȡ�[ फाईल/ Guard file

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY //

Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

QUICKTOUCH TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 14(1),, 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