MAA MATI NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), KOLKATA,, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2130/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2026AY 2018-20196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass an order on merits after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 175 days in filing. The assessee sought to have the appeal remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, providing an affidavit with an undertaking to cooperate.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 2129 & 2130/KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2018-19 Maa Mati Nirman Pvt. Ltd.............................................................................Appellant Lawgical Consultants, 29D, Bentick Street, Unit-A, B & C, 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700001 [PAN No. AAHCM3789J] Vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)...........................................................,..……………....……….Respondent Kolkata- 700069 Appearances by: Ankit Jalan, A.R., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R), appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: August 17, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order: August 25 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.04.2026 and 13.10.2025 of the Office Of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 270A and 147 of the Assessment Year 2018-19 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

In both the cases, issues are common and similar hence taken up together or disposal by taking 2130/2026 as a lead case.

2.

The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) as the

ITA No.2129 & 2130/Kol/2026 CIT(A) has passed order in which he dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 175 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR submits that there was sufficient and reasonable case has been shown by the assessee regarding the delay but CIT(A) did not condone. He has filed an affidavit before us by giving undertaking that assessee shall cooperate in the remand proceedings, if the appeal be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A).

The ld. DR though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee.

3.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. CIT(A) has also confirmed order of the AO by holding that there was complete non-prosecution by the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings. Hence order passed by the Assessing Officers do not requires any interference. The prayer of the AR is that assessee has to given an opportunity to place his case and a direction may be given to the CIT(A) to pass order on merit after hearing the assessee. 4. 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: 2

ITA No.2129 & 2130/Kol/2026 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.”

5.We have also gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee and find that assessee has undertaken that the proper compliance shall be made if the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the lower authorities. Keeping in view the facts of the case as well as considering the Apex Court Judgment, delay occurred before the CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Appeal of the assessee is remitting back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass order on merit after hearing of the assessee.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

2129/2026

6.

The present appeal relates to the penalty order passed in pursuant to the assessment order, confirmed by the CIT(A). We have already set aside the

ITA No.2129 & 2130/Kol/2026 quantum of appeal and remit it back to the file of the CIT(A),so the present appeal which relates to the penalty proceedings are also hereby set aside and restored it to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass order after passing of the order in quantum of appeal.

In the result, both the appeals are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 25th August , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC Dated: 25. 08.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Deputy Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.2129 & 2130/Kol/2026

ITA No.2129 & 2130/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →