DISHA EYE HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.,,BARRACKPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 13.1,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2410/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 July 2026AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments that emphasize liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was remitted back for fresh consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 126 days. The assessee argued that the delay was not intentional and was caused by a lack of information regarding a prior assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and if the appeal should be considered on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Pransukhka, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.06.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2410/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Disha Eye Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 88(63A) Ghospara Road, Vs. Circle – 13(1), Barrackpur, Kolkata – 7000120, Kolkata West Bengal [PAN: AABCD4082F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. K. Pransukhka, FCA Respondent by: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.07.2026

O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 12.08.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017–18.

2.

The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed returned income for the A.Y. 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.23,88,72,310/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment proceedings was completed by determining total income of Rs.25,65,25,850/-, after addition of Rs.1,76,53,538/-, Considering the assessment order being erroneous and

ITA No.2410/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT prejudicial to the interests of revenue, an order u/s 263 of the Act was passed with a direction to verify and pass order accordingly. After the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, opportunities have been given to the assessee to submit response but no response received from the side of the assessee, as a result, assessment was done after adding a sum of Rs.1,89,78,538/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal of the assessee dismissed on account of delay of 126 days.

4.

Being aggrieved, dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) instead of arguing into the merit of the assessee, has only prayed that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay as the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the reason of delay being Bonafide and dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. AR submits that there was no intentional delay rather delay caused due to non-information of the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2023 and it was come into the knowledge of the assessee after receiving of penalty initiation notice. The prayer of the ld. AR that appeal be remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

5.

Contrary to that learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) supports the impugned order.

6.

Upon hearing the submission of the ld. Counsel of the representative parties and on perusing of the order, we find that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed after a delay of 126 days. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered the reasons of delay in filing of the appeal. The appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine and not on merits. In this context,

ITA No.2410/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT we have perused the several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and find that in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575], this Court reiterated the following classic statement from Krishna vs. Chathappan [1890 ILR 13 Mad 269]:

"... Section 5 gives the courts a discretion which in respect of jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles which are well understood; the words `sufficient cause' receiving a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant."

In N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy [1998 (7) SCC 123], this Court held: 5."It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court. 2. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice...... Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. 3. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.”

ITA No.2410/Kol/2025/AY 2017-18 Disha Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 7. Keeping in view the submission and considering the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court as aforesaid, we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass fresh order on merits after affording opportunity to the assessee to place his case. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is hereby set-aside.

8.

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

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 06/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mishra) (Pradip Kumar Choubey) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 06/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,/ DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY //

Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →