M/S. ZEROMILE VINCOME PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., NFSC, , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2194/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2026AY 2012-20136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 870 days in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving the Assessing Officer's order. The assessee prayed for the appeal to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

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 despite the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

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 2193 & 2194/KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2012-13 M/s Zeromile Vincome Pvt. Ltd.............................................................................Appellant C/o. M/s Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 5, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata- 700072 [PAN No. AAACZ5014E] Vs. ACIT, NFAC Centre..................................................,..……………....……….Respondent 4th Floor, Room No. 402, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001 Appearances by: Siddarth Jhajharia, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Praveen Das Chowdhury, (Sr. D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing: August 18, 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 13.04.2026 and 25.04.2026 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhipassed under Section 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Assessment Year 2012-13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

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 CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was a delay in filing of the appeal of 870 days ignoring the condonation petition filed by the assessee.

ITA No.2193 & 2194/Kol/2026 The Ld. AR submits that cause has been shown by the assessee with regard to the delay in filing of the appeal but that has not been taken into consideration by the CIT(A) rendered the appeal dismissed in limine, i.e. liable to be set aside and direction has to be given to the CIT(A) to pass order on merit. The Ld. AR prayed that for interest of justice assessee has to be given an opportunity to place his case before the CIT(A).

Contrary to that ld. DR supports the impugned order by submitting that there was a huge delay of 870 days.

3.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that in form No. 35 the assessee has filed an affidavit in support of delay in filing of the appeal and according to him order of the Assessing Officers had not been received by the assessee vide his email or by hard copies. It is an admitted fact that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) only on the point of limitation. The prayer of the assessee is that assessee will suffer irreparable loss if the appeal of the assessee could not be heard on merit.His prayer is that appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) after condoning the delay.

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

ITA No.2193 & 2194/Kol/2026 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.”

4.

Keeping in view the facts of the case, considering the affidavit filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) and looking at the judgment passed by the Apex Court we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the CIT(A) bu condoning the delay with a direction to pass order on merit after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee.

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

ITA No.2193 & 2194/Kol/2026 ITA 2194/2026

Since we have already set aside the quantum appeal and restored it before the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order, hence the penalty order passed by the CIT(A) is also here by set aside and remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a liberty to pass order after adjudication in the quantum of appeal

In the result, both the appeal is 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.2193 & 2194/Kol/2026

ITA No.2193 & 2194/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →