SHREE LAKSHMI TRADING CENTRE,PASCHIM MIDNAPORE vs. I.T.O., WARD - 39(1), MIDNAPORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 June 2026AY 2018-201910 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the provided affidavit and judicial pronouncements emphasizing liberal construction of 'sufficient cause'. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but failed to comply with notices during the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay, despite the assessee submitting medical documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if so, whether the matter should be adjudicated on merits or remitted back to the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.231 /Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Lakshmi Trading Centre……………….………………………….Appellant Sabong, Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal- 721144 [PAN No.AAWFS7689H] Vs. I.T.O., Ward – 39(1)……………..………………..…………….………... Respondent Sahoo Bhawan, Midnapore, West Bengal- 721101. Appearances by: Ankit Jalan, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 10, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : June 25 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.11.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that assessee had filed a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs. 6,66,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) was

issued, notice u/s 142(1) were also issued, there was no compliance to the notice by the assessee, as a result of which income of the assessee was computed as under:-

With these remarks, income of the assessee is computed as under:

Net taxable income shown Rs. 6,66,448/-

Add as discussed above Rs. 32,81,878/-

ii. As discussed above Rs. 64,01,952/-

iii. As discussed above Rs. 2,40,000/-

Taxable income Rs. 1,05,90,278/-

Pr Say Rs. 1,05,90,280/-

A rectification order has been passed as the AO found that no interest u/s 34B of the act has been charged and a rectification order u/s 154 ahs been passed on 22.11.2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the act assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on account of delay of one years and nine months.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us.

4.

The Ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only prayed that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration as the order passed by the lower authorities are not on merits, rather AO has passed an ex-party order and CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. The Ld. AR submits that assessee before the CIT(A) filed medical documents to justify the cause of the delay but that has not been considered by the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submits that assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case before the AO. The Ld. AR also filed an affidavit of the partner of the firm stating the grounds and reason of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to file of the AO.

5.

Upon hearing the submissions of the counsel of the respective parties and on perusal of order of the lower authorities, we find that at the time of assessment proceeding u/s 143(3)

there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee and order passed by the Assessing Officer is an ex-party order. The Ld. CIT(A) has also passed an order on limitation though the assessee has filed medical certificate explaining the reason of delay. Before us also the Ld. AR has filed an affidavit of one Nirmala Chandra one of the partner of the assessee firm which is as below:- Going over the contents of the petition which is supported with an affidavit we are in this opinion that delay caused to file an appeal before the CIT(A) was seems to be genuine and bona fide. In this context we have gone through the order of the Apex Court:-

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.”

6.

Keeping in view the facts of the case, considering the affidavit as well as judicial pronouncement on the point of limitation we are in this view that delay should be condoned. Accordingly delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Now coming to the question of remitting of the appeal before the CIT(A) or before the AO, we find that at the time of assessment proceeding there was no compliance and order passed by the AO is an ex-party order.Facts of the case reveals that document has to be examined and verified at the level of the AO. In view of the discussion made about and considering the facts of the case we are remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the AO with direction to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to place his case. We set aside the order passed by the lower authority and appeal of the assessee is hereby remitted back to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose.

Kolkata, the 25th June, 2026.

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

Dated:. .06. 2026. DC, PS

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

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

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →