HI-TECH CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY HIGHTETURN DEALER PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2216/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 August 2026AY 2016-20176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order of the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay of 348 days. The assessee attributed this delay to the negligence of their accountant and sought condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was a sufficient cause for condonation, and whether the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No 2215 & 2216 /KOL/2026 Assessment Year- 2016-17 HI-Tech Civil Infrastructure Private Limited........................................................Appellant (Formerly Highreturn Dealer Private Limited, 75, Central Avenue, Bowbazar S.O., Kolkata- 700012. [PAN No. AACCG9147R] (Predecessor) [AACCH0902R] (Successor) Vs. ITO, Ward 6(1)...........................................................,..……………....……….Respondent Kolkata- 700069 Appearances by: Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Ambrish Mishra, Sr. DR, 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 11.05.2026 and 11.05.2026 of the Office Of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 147r.w.s144 & 271(1)(c) of the Assessment Year 2016-17 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 2215 is a lead case.

ITA No.2215 & 2216/Kol/2026 2. The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitting back to the file of the AO as before the AO. It was an ex-parte order and CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 348 days. The ld. AR submits that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and it was not intentional rather it was filed delay due to the cross-negligence on the part of the accountant who was conducted the case of the assessee. The Ld. AR submits that the assessee was not at valid in causing the delay hence his prayer is that appeal be remitted back to the file of the AO after condoning the delay occurred before the CIT(A). The ld DR did not raise any objection.

3.

Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order we find that assessment was done when there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee CIT(A) has dismiss the appeal on the point of limitation and there was no discussion on the merit of the case. 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 2

ITA No.2215 & 2216/Kol/2026 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.

Going over the facts of the case considering the submission made by the assessee delay as occurred before the CIT(A) as hereby condoned. Since the order passed by the AO is also an ex-parte order hence we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order after affording an opportunity to hear the assessee. Accordingly order passed by the lower authority is hereby set aside. Appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

2216

ITA No.2215 & 2216/Kol/2026 The present appeal relates to the penalty proceedings being the outcome of result of the assessment proceedings which we have already set aside and remitted back to the file of the AO. Hence, the penalty proceeding is also hereby set aside and remanded back to the file of the AO with a direction to pass an order after fresh assessment on remand.

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is 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 4

ITA No.2215 & 2216/Kol/2026

ITA No.2215 & 2216/Kol/2026

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →