IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1), , KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.581 & 582/KOL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) IFB Agro Industries Limited, ACIT, Plot No. Ind – 5, Sector – 1, East Vs. Circle – 6(1), Kolkata Township, Kolkata – Kolkata 700107, West Bengal [PAN: AAACI6487L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2026

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

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders dated 22.12.2025 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.) 2015–16.

ITA Nos.581 & 582/Kol/2026/AY 2015-16 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vbs. ACIT ITA No.582/Kol/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16):

Aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred the appeal against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) as well as an appeal filed against the rectification order before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on account of limitation and appeal filed against the rectification order has been dismissed by observing that issue of allowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has already rejected in appeal order against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, therefore the appeal against the 154 has become infructuous.

ITA Nos.581 & 582/Kol/2026/AY 2015-16 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vbs. ACIT 5. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) challenging the very impugned order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) ought to condone the delay as there was no intentional delay in filing the appeal rather it was due to the bonafide manner by taking recourse of section 154 of the Act. The ld. AR submits that the time taken in disposing the application u/s 154 of the Act was beyond the control of the assessee and ld. CIT(A) ought to have been excluded the same. The prayer of the ld. AR is that appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay with a direction to pass order on merits. The ld. AR, further submits that no adjustment can be made in intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, if the issue is debatable. The ld. AR placed following decisions before us, viz., (i) Mool Chandra vs. UOI (2025) 1 SCC 625, (ii) N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, (iii) Jyoti Ranjan Roy vs. ACIT, ITA No.963/Kol/2024 and (iv) Uttam Jain vs. ACIT 2019 (7) TMI 1500 (Cal.). 6. Contrary to that learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) supports the impugned order. Upon hearing the submission of the ld. Counsel of the 7. representative parties and on perusing of the order, we find that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of limitation and there was no discussion on the merits of the case. The ld. AR submits that ld. CIT(A) did not consider this fact that assessee has filed rectification application on 29.12.2016 and second letter dated 03.06.2019 by way of reminder and time consumed by assessee in filing appeal against the order passed u/s 143(1) was due to the delay in disposal of his petition filed u/s 154 of the Act.

ITA Nos.581 & 582/Kol/2026/AY 2015-16 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vbs. ACIT In this context, 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 Nos.581 & 582/Kol/2026/AY 2015-16 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vbs. ACIT 6. Keeping in view the submission and considering the Apex Court decision, we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) after condoning the delay. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass the order on merits after hearing the assessee. The order of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for passing order on merit. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.581/Kol/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16):

The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass order u/s 143(1) of the Act on merits.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Pradip Kumar Choubey) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 29/06/2026 SAMANTA आदेश�ȧĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant

ITA Nos.581 & 582/Kol/2026/AY 2015-16 IFB Agro Industries Ltd. vbs. ACIT 2. Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��आयकर] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 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