RAYCHAK NIJKHAYRA SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITI LIMITED,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 27(3),, HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2408/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 April 2026AY 2018-20195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, directing the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed due to a significant delay and non-appearance, without condoning the delay. The assessee attributed the delay to the serious illness of their authorized person responsible for tax matters.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(Appeals) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)

ITA No. 2408/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 2408/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Limited,……………………………………….Appellant Manoharpur, Sajibagachi, Sub Tamluk, P.S. Kolaghat, Purba Medinipur-721154, West Bengal [PAN:AABAR7887A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-27(3), Haldia, 34JW + H 57, Durgachak, Haldia-721602, West Benegal Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: March 05, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: April 28, 2026 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.09.2022 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019.

ITA No. 2408/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. 2. The appeal is time barred by 1071 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay and without condoning the delay decided the appeal on merits as there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay for non-filing of condonation petition within the specified time limit before him in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee in the Form No. 35 has stated the reason that there was a delay due to serious ailments of the authorized person (Secretary) Mr. Jagannath Routh, who was entrusted in managing the tax matters, is responsible for the said assignment only. Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). But the ld. CIT(Appeals) decided the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

2.1. The appeal is also time-barred by 1062 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. Though the assessee did not file any condonation petition in support of condonation of delay.

ITA No. 2408/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 1062 days. Hence the delay is condoned.

4.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has passed the order ex-parte without giving opportunities to the assessee. He also submitted that even the assessment order has been passed under section 143(1) of the Act due to belated filing of the return of income and pleaded that the issue was debatable and the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Act was not permissible in law. He prayed before the Bench to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. At the time of hearing, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative supported the orders of lower authorities.

6.

I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. It is also evident that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not discussed the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance. I also find that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act as the assessee remained non- compliant and failed to produce any evidence or supporting documents in support of the claim as well as belated filing of return of income. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I

ITA No. 2408/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and in order to meet the principle of natural justice, remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026.

Sd/- (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 28th day of April, 2026

Copies to :(1) Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Limited, Manoharpur, Sajibagachi, Sub Tamluk, P.S. Kolaghat, Purba Medinipur-721154, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(3), Haldia, 34JW + H 57, Durgachak, Haldia-721602, West Benegal (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; 4

ITA No. 2408/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2018-2019) Raychak Nijkhayra Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →